I won on The Underview Marx Card I went for it in the 1AR since it was conceded and also went for turns on their case that were unresponded
The vote was mostly contingent on the Underview because the Neg couldn't generate any offense after it was conceded
National Debate Coaches Association National Championships
2
Opponent: Lexington ML | Judge: X Braithwaite
AC- Cap Displacement Feasibility Harms
NC- Innovation US Heg
1AR- Cap Displacement
NR- Innovation
2AR- Cap Displacement
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
Contact Information
Tournament: All | Round: 1 | Opponent: All | Judge: All This is THE Jack Gessner
Call Me whatever you want I don't care
I go to Harrison, the school itself is overrated. But our team is top tier
Prepare to die. Just kidding don't read theory
You can contact me at gessnerj@harrisoncsd.org. But cases are so predictable so you probably won't need to
Let's go Rangers
Libya
1/13/22
Outer Space Aff 2
Tournament: Malcom A Bump Memorial an NYCFL Event | Round: 3 | Opponent: Bronx Science MR | Judge: Eleanor Wangensteen I. Interpretations
I Affirm II. Framework Value As the topic prescribes, I value Justice, meaning a social system that respects each person’s membership in society. While citizens have different views on key issues, just governments must determine who is due what based on the core values that citizens share. Daniels Further, since people are morally equal at birth, states must ensure them baseline social equality. Daniels: Daniels, Norman. Professor of Philosophy, Harvard University “Democratic Equality: Rawls’s Complex Egalitarianism.” In Samuel Richard Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge University Press, 2003. CH
Because of their interest in recognitional equality, when contractors choose principles they must assure all citizens that the terms of cooperation sustain their sense of self-respect. Self-respect is sustained when there is a basis for each to recognize and respond to others as equal citizens. The fundamental importance of protecting the capability of all to participate in democratic processes and public life, and of not simply assuming people formal rights that might be thought empty of real meaning or effect, derives from this concern to protect the recognitional components of equality. Those who are best off must retain the awareness that the worst off are still equal and worthy participants in the democratic regulation of society. Those who are worst off must continue to see themselves as worthy equals-- in participation, in opportunity, and in the interest they have in pursuing their ends -- or they will not be able to sustain their self-respect and thus their participation. A key reason for insisting that the term “democratic equality” refers to the all three principles of justice, and not just to fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle, derives from the importance of this egalitarian idea about the social bases of self-respect, with its echo of Rousseau.” Standard Thus, my criterion is Promoting Social Inclusion. Promoting Social Inclusion means increasing all peoples’ ability to have a say in the conditions that govern them. As this criterion is about increasing access to political and social rights, arguments that only discuss economic benefits or harms from outer space aren’t relevant to the issue of inclusion.
Further, The Standard looks at structural inclusion, so it's not sufficient for the Neg to say particular instances can increase inclusion. Instead, The Neg must show that they increase overall inclusion within society. Weigh the round based on which debater provides more overall access to social goods.
Contention 1: Harms Contention 1 My first contention is the harms from appropriation and space endeavors outweigh any gain. Negating isn't worth the harms
Reimann Private companies are appropriating space for the wrong reasons, and are increasing economic disparity
Reimann: Reimann, Nicholas. Forbes Business Writer Leaving A Planet In Crisis: Here’s Why Many Say The Billionaire Space Race Is A Terrible Idea Forbes 2021
The driving force behind space travel has shifted away from its long history of massive government projects to private industry over the past few years. SpaceX’s May 2020 launch of two NASA astronauts from Kennedy Space Center in Florida marked the first manned launch from U.S. soil since 2011, with SpaceX becoming the first private company to send astronauts to the International Space Station during the same mission. Musk’s company has since been chosen as the sole company that will create spacecraft for NASA’s upcoming Artemis mission to send astronauts back to the Moon, beating out Blue Origin for the contract. But the shift to privatization hasn’t just put billionaire’s companies at the forefront of scientific achievements—it’s accelerated the push for space tourism programs, which for now come with price tags solely restricted to the ultrawealthy. There’s also already been talk of luxury space hotels. Orbital Assembly Corp. announced plans earlier this year for a 280-guest hotel called Voyager Station, which it said will open in 2027. The company hopes to work with SpaceX as a partner on the project. $6 billion. That’s how much money it would take to save 41 million people set to die of hunger this year worldwide, according to UN World Food Program Executive Director David Beasley. Beasley sent a tweet late last month urging Musk, Branson and Bezos to team up to fight hunger, saying, “We can solve this quickly!”
King Appropriation of space will come at detrimental costs to companies with a profit motive King: King, Lyon. Michigan Technological University. “Space Tech has Outpaced Space Law, and we’re at risk of killing Innovation” Tech Crunch 2018
“Disruption” is a term (over)used in the technology world to describe some development or product that is inherently good. The formal definition of the term, however, is at odds with its casual use: a disruption is a “disturbance or problem that interrupts an event, activity, or process.” Right now, space tech is currently experiencing both flavors of disruption. Reliable estimates indicate that within the next 5-7 years, the inhabitants of the Earth will launch more satellites into space than have been launched in the history of our planet up until now. This is a disruption in the best sense; however, there’s a serious problem: we’re at a very real risk of crushing our own excitement and stalling our progress toward the stars. Space policy hasn’t been high on our government’s to-do list, and this unfortunate regulatory neglect means that today’s most innovative companies’ plans are being disrupted by stuffy, antiquated rules and regulations.------------------Faced with the prospect of this, there’s no doubt that ambitious and bold startups will be tempted to push the boundaries and see just how severe the penalties will be for operating sans permit (and in fact, that seems to be the path taken by the Swarm team). At this point, nobody really knows what the real consequences are. In the worst case, they will destroy the entire business of the startup that dares, but then bankruptcy might have been pretty much guaranteed anyway, based on the undetermined time of the FCC appeal process.
Manning Space activities are uncharted and oftentimes reckless Manning: Manning, Robert. Former Advisor to the Secretary of State. “The Dangers of Anarchy In Space” The Hill 2021. I can’t think of a more dramatic illustration of how reckless actions in space put all at grave risk than Russia’s recent anti-satellite (ASAT) test blowing up one of its own defunct satellites and creating a cloud of more than 1,500 pieces of space debris. Even small pieces of debris, when traveling at some 17,000 miles per hour, can cause horrific damage to satellites, disrupting the space infrastructure that is the nervous system of modern life. Moscow’s test forced astronauts (including its own cosmonauts) on board the International Space Station (ISS) to take emergency safety measures for fear of collision. Moscow’s test followed a similarly dangerous Chinese ASAT test in 2007, and a U.S. ASAT test (though designed to minimize debris) in 2008. All this reflects a troubling anarchy in the cosmos, a militarization of space, one ill-conceived aspect of unrestrained arms racing, the pathology of this era of great power competition. Space junk is inadvertent, but satellites that can kill or disable satellites and cyber jamming highlight the military risks. The anti-space antics also reveal the mutual vulnerabilities that should spark a rethink of current policies in the interest of self-preservation.
Tabit Space Appropriation increases the use of harmful rockets. Private sector appropriation will increase rocket usage, and harm the environment badly Tabit: Tabit, Jesse. West Virginia University “Space Travel Is Great, but According to This, You Won’t Have a Planet to Come Home To” Fedor’s Travel 2019
While these plans may sound awesome in theory, their side effects…are less so. At least, according to a recent analysis from travel site Champion Traveler which concluded that one trip aboard SpaceX’s Falcon emits a carbon footprint so large that it’s the equivalent of flying across the Atlantic 395 times. More of a road tripper than a frequent flyer? Here’s another way to look at it: according to Champion Traveler, a single space flight reportedly emits as much CO2 as 73 cars do in one year. And while Champion Traveler claims that these emissions represent a tiny fraction of the human race’s yearly CO2 output, one can’t help but wonder: is it really worth compromising the health of our planet? Even though it’s a small number, who knows how things will spiral out of control as space travel becomes more popular and accessible.
Contention 2: Negating is Unjust Contention 2 My Second contention is Negating means perpetuating injustices, Appropriation means the rich get richer, oftentimes due to the exploitation of less fortunate individuals.
Tarnoff Neg supported Public Private Collaborations deteriorate Democracy, considering democracy is the closest we can get to a just government, It deteriorates justice itself. Tarnoff: Tarnoff, Brett. Founding Editor of Logic. “How Privatization Could Spell The end Of Democracy” The Guardian 2017
A profit-driven system doesn’t mean we get more for our money – it means someone gets to make more money off of us. The healthcare industry posts record profits and rewards its chief executives with the highest salaries in the country. It takes a peculiar frame of mind to see this arrangement as anything resembling efficient. Attacking public services on the grounds of efficiency isn’t just incorrect, however – it’s beside the point. Decades of neoliberalism have corroded our capacity to think in non-economic terms. We’ve been taught that all fields of human life should be organized as markets, and that government should be run like a business. This ideology has found its perverse culmination in the figure of Donald Trump, a celebrity billionaire with no prior political experience who catapulted himself into the White House by invoking his expertise as an businessman. The premise of Trump’s campaign was that America didn’t need a president – it needed a CEO. Nowhere is the neoliberal faith embodied by Trump more deeply felt than in Silicon Valley. Tech entrepreneurs work tirelessly to turn more of our lives into markets and devote enormous resources towards “disrupting” government by privatizing its functions. Perhaps this is why, despite Silicon Valley’s veneer of liberal cosmopolitanism, it has a certain affinity for the president. On Monday, Trump met with top executives from Apple, Amazon, Google and other major tech firms to explore how to “unleash the creativity of the private sector to provide citizen services”, in the words of Jared Kushner. Between Trump and tech, never before have so many powerful people been so intent on transforming government into a business. But government isn’t a business; it’s a different kind of machine. At its worst, it can be repressive and corrupt and autocratic. At its best, it can be an invaluable tool for developing and sustaining a democratic society. Among other things, this includes ensuring that everyone receives the resources they need to exercise the freedoms on which democracy depends. When we privatize public services, we don’t just risk replacing them with less efficient alternatives – we risk damaging democracy itself. If this seems like a stretch, that’s because pundits and politicians have spent decades defining the idea of democracy downwards. It has come to mean little more than holding elections every few years. But this is the absolute minimum of democracy’s meaning. Its Greek root translates to “rule of the people” – not rule by certain people, such as the rich (plutocracy) or the priests (theocracy), but by all people. Democracy describes a way of organizing society in which the whole of the people determine how society should be organized.
Shammas and Holen Negating, and appropriating space invite capitalism with open arms Shammas and Holen: Shammas, Victor. Metropolitan University Oslo. Holen, Tomas. Independent Scholar Oslo “One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space”Palgrave Commun 2019
Outer space is becoming a space for capitalism. We are entering a new era of the commercialization of space, geared towards generating profits from satellite launches, space tourism, asteroid mining, and related ventures. This era, driven by private corporations such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origins, has been labeled by industry insiders as ‘NewSpace'—in contrast to ‘Old Space', a Cold War-era mode of space relations when (allegedly) slow-moving, sluggish states dominated outer space. NewSpace marks the arrival of capitalism in space. While challenging the libertarian rhetoric of its proponents—space enterprises remain enmeshed in the state, relying on funding, physical infrastructure, technology transfers, regulatory frameworks, and symbolic support—NewSpace nevertheless heralds a novel form of human activity in space. Despite its humanistic, universalizing pretensions, however, NewSpace does not benefit humankind as such but rather a specific set of wealthy entrepreneurs, many of them originating in Silicon Valley, who strategically deploy humanist tropes to engender enthusiasm for their activities. We describe this complex as ‘capitalistkind'. Moreover, the arrival of capitalism in space is fueled by the expansionary logic of capital accumulation. Outer space serves as a spatial fix, allowing capital to transcend its inherent terrestrial limitations. In this way, the ultimate spatial fix is perhaps (outer) space itself. Sharma Capitalism in space leads to ethical concerns, and inequalities that mirror what we see on earth today Sharma: Sharma, Maanas. The Space Review Writer. “The privatized frontier: the ethical implications and role of private companies in space exploration” The Space Review 2021
Another large ethical concern is the prominence capitalism may have in the future of private space exploration and the impacts thereof. The growth of private space companies in recent years has been closely intertwined with capitalism. Companies have largely focused on the most profitable projects, such as space travel and the business of space.7 Many companies are funded by individual billionaires, such as dearMoon, SpaceX’s upcoming mission to the Moon.8 Congress has also passed multiple acts for the purpose of reducing regulations on private space companies and securing private access to space. From this, many immediately jump to the conclusion that capitalism in space will recreate the same conditions in outer space that plague Earth today, especially with the increasing push to create a “space-for-space” economy, such as space tourism and new technologies to mine the Moon and asteroids. Critics, such as Jordan Pearson of VICE, believe that promises of “virtually unlimited resources” are only for the rich, and will perpetuate the growing wealth inequality that plagues the world today.9
Lenzen and Weidmann Underdeveloped nations are exploited and blamed for harms and dirty work of the rich
Lenzen and Weidmann: Lenzen, Manfred. University of Sydney. “Rich nations displace environmental damage to developing countries” PhysicsWorld 2018 Weidmann, Tommy. University of Sydney “Rich nations displace environmental damage to developing countries” PhysicsWorld 2018
Around a third of environmental and social impacts from consumption in wealthy nations is displaced to developing countries, according to the latest analysis. And that trend in outsourcing responsibility is increasing. “Many citizens of rich countries require the work of up to five poor people to satisfy their consumption,” said Manfred Lenzen of the University of Sydney, Australia. “Rich consumers like us are implicated in pollution and inequality all over the world, and people in poor countries bear the brunt of our large environmental and social footprints.” According to Tommy Wiedmann of UNSW Sydney, indirect effects facilitated by often complicated supply-chains are mostly hidden from consumers, who generally do not know where the raw ingredients of their purchases stem from.
As An Underview: Marx THE NC’S NON-UNIQUE – space exploration isn’t the same as appropriation, so we CAN get their benefits on the aff. Marx: Marx, Paris. Host of the Tech Won't Save Us podcast; author of Road to Nowhere: Silicon Valley and the Future of Mobility “Yes to Space Exploration. No to Space Capitalism.” Jacobin, June 8, 2020. https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/spacex-elon-musk-jeff-bezos-capitalism CH
Yes to Space Exploration. No to Space Capitalism. BY PARIS MARX Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk have a vision of space that serves the narrow interests of capitalists. But we don’t want to be indentured servants on a Martian colony — we want solar exploration that benefits humanity as a whole. On May 30, SpaceX finally launched astronauts into space more than two years behind schedule. President Donald Trump was on hand for the launch. After pushing for the militarization of space with the formation of the US Space Force, Trump fused his own vision with that of SpaceX founder Elon Musk, declaring, “We’ll soon be landing on Mars and we’ll soon have the greatest weapons ever imagined in history.” Early in Trump’s presidency, Musk faced criticism for being part of the administration’s advisory council and refusing to step down even as Trump signed his signature Muslim ban. It was believed Musk was hoping to benefit from greater public subsidies, on top of the billions NASA gave to SpaceX, and he’s set to do so as part of Trump’s plan to get astronauts back on the moon by 2024. More recently, the two have found themselves of the same mind on the pandemic as they shared misleading health information and Musk echoed Trump’s calls to “open the economy” and give people their “freedom” back. The May 30 launch symbolized both Trump’s desire to project an image of revived American greatness and Musk’s need not only to bolster the myth that makes his wealth possible, but to set the foundations for a privatized space industry.
He adds:
Space has been used by past US presidents to bolster American power and influence, but it was largely accepted that capitalism ended at the edge of the atmosphere. That’s no longer the case, and just as past capitalist expansions have come at the expense of poor and working people to enrich a small elite, so too will this one. Bezos and Trump may have a public feud, but that doesn’t mean that their mutual interest isn’t served by a renewed US push into space that funnels massive public funds into private pockets and seeks to open celestial bodies to capitalist resource extraction. This is not to say that we need to halt space exploration. The collective interest of humanity is served by learning more about the solar system and the universe beyond, but the goal of such missions must be driven by gaining scientific knowledge and enhancing global cooperation, not nationalism and profit-making. Yet that’s exactly what the space billionaires and American authoritarians have found common cause in, with Trump declaring that “a new age of American ambition has now begun” at a NASA press briefing just hours before cities across the country were placed under curfew last week. Before space can be explored in a way that benefits all of humankind, existing social relations must be transformed, not extended into the stars as part of a new colonial project.
I Affirm II. Framework Value As the topic prescribes, I value Justice, meaning a social system that respects each person’s membership in society. While citizens have different views on key issues, just governments must determine who is due what based on the core values that citizens share. Daniels Further, since people are morally equal at birth, states must ensure them baseline social equality. Daniels: Daniels, Norman. Professor of Philosophy, Harvard University “Democratic Equality: Rawls’s Complex Egalitarianism.” In Samuel Richard Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge University Press, 2003. CH
Because of their interest in recognitional equality, when contractors choose principles they must assure all citizens that the terms of cooperation sustain their sense of self-respect. Self-respect is sustained when there is a basis for each to recognize and respond to others as equal citizens. The fundamental importance of protecting the capability of all to participate in democratic processes and public life, and of not simply assuming people formal rights that might be thought empty of real meaning or effect, derives from this concern to protect the recognitional components of equality. Those who are best off must retain the awareness that the worst off are still equal and worthy participants in the democratic regulation of society. Those who are worst off must continue to see themselves as worthy equals-- in participation, in opportunity, and in the interest they have in pursuing their ends -- or they will not be able to sustain their self-respect and thus their participation. A key reason for insisting that the term “democratic equality” refers to the all three principles of justice, and not just to fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle, derives from the importance of this egalitarian idea about the social bases of self-respect, with its echo of Rousseau.” Standard Thus, my criterion is Promoting Social Inclusion. Promoting Social Inclusion means increasing all peoples’ ability to have a say in the conditions that govern them. As this criterion is about increasing access to political and social rights, arguments that only discuss economic benefits or harms from outer space aren’t relevant to the issue of inclusion.
Further, The Standard looks at structural inclusion, so it's not sufficient for the Neg to say particular instances can increase inclusion. Instead, The Neg must show that they increase overall inclusion within society. Weigh the round based on which debater provides more overall access to social goods.
Contention 1: Harms Contention 1 My first contention is the harms from appropriation and space endeavors outweigh any gain. Negating isn't worth the harms
Reimann Private companies are appropriating space for the wrong reasons, and are increasing economic disparity
Reimann: Reimann, Nicholas. Forbes Business Writer Leaving A Planet In Crisis: Here’s Why Many Say The Billionaire Space Race Is A Terrible Idea Forbes 2021
The driving force behind space travel has shifted away from its long history of massive government projects to private industry over the past few years. SpaceX’s May 2020 launch of two NASA astronauts from Kennedy Space Center in Florida marked the first manned launch from U.S. soil since 2011, with SpaceX becoming the first private company to send astronauts to the International Space Station during the same mission. Musk’s company has since been chosen as the sole company that will create spacecraft for NASA’s upcoming Artemis mission to send astronauts back to the Moon, beating out Blue Origin for the contract. But the shift to privatization hasn’t just put billionaire’s companies at the forefront of scientific achievements—it’s accelerated the push for space tourism programs, which for now come with price tags solely restricted to the ultrawealthy. There’s also already been talk of luxury space hotels. Orbital Assembly Corp. announced plans earlier this year for a 280-guest hotel called Voyager Station, which it said will open in 2027. The company hopes to work with SpaceX as a partner on the project. $6 billion. That’s how much money it would take to save 41 million people set to die of hunger this year worldwide, according to UN World Food Program Executive Director David Beasley. Beasley sent a tweet late last month urging Musk, Branson and Bezos to team up to fight hunger, saying, “We can solve this quickly!”
King Appropriation of space will come at detrimental costs to companies with a profit motive King: King, Lyon. Michigan Technological University. “Space Tech has Outpaced Space Law, and we’re at risk of killing Innovation” Tech Crunch 2018
“Disruption” is a term (over)used in the technology world to describe some development or product that is inherently good. The formal definition of the term, however, is at odds with its casual use: a disruption is a “disturbance or problem that interrupts an event, activity, or process.” Right now, space tech is currently experiencing both flavors of disruption. Reliable estimates indicate that within the next 5-7 years, the inhabitants of the Earth will launch more satellites into space than have been launched in the history of our planet up until now. This is a disruption in the best sense; however, there’s a serious problem: we’re at a very real risk of crushing our own excitement and stalling our progress toward the stars. Space policy hasn’t been high on our government’s to-do list, and this unfortunate regulatory neglect means that today’s most innovative companies’ plans are being disrupted by stuffy, antiquated rules and regulations.------------------Faced with the prospect of this, there’s no doubt that ambitious and bold startups will be tempted to push the boundaries and see just how severe the penalties will be for operating sans permit (and in fact, that seems to be the path taken by the Swarm team). At this point, nobody really knows what the real consequences are. In the worst case, they will destroy the entire business of the startup that dares, but then bankruptcy might have been pretty much guaranteed anyway, based on the undetermined time of the FCC appeal process.
Manning Space activities are uncharted and oftentimes reckless Manning: Manning, Robert. Former Advisor to the Secretary of State. “The Dangers of Anarchy In Space” The Hill 2021. I can’t think of a more dramatic illustration of how reckless actions in space put all at grave risk than Russia’s recent anti-satellite (ASAT) test blowing up one of its own defunct satellites and creating a cloud of more than 1,500 pieces of space debris. Even small pieces of debris, when traveling at some 17,000 miles per hour, can cause horrific damage to satellites, disrupting the space infrastructure that is the nervous system of modern life. Moscow’s test forced astronauts (including its own cosmonauts) on board the International Space Station (ISS) to take emergency safety measures for fear of collision. Moscow’s test followed a similarly dangerous Chinese ASAT test in 2007, and a U.S. ASAT test (though designed to minimize debris) in 2008. All this reflects a troubling anarchy in the cosmos, a militarization of space, one ill-conceived aspect of unrestrained arms racing, the pathology of this era of great power competition. Space junk is inadvertent, but satellites that can kill or disable satellites and cyber jamming highlight the military risks. The anti-space antics also reveal the mutual vulnerabilities that should spark a rethink of current policies in the interest of self-preservation.
Tabit Space Appropriation increases the use of harmful rockets. Private sector appropriation will increase rocket usage, and harm the environment badly Tabit: Tabit, Jesse. West Virginia University “Space Travel Is Great, but According to This, You Won’t Have a Planet to Come Home To” Fedor’s Travel 2019
While these plans may sound awesome in theory, their side effects…are less so. At least, according to a recent analysis from travel site Champion Traveler which concluded that one trip aboard SpaceX’s Falcon emits a carbon footprint so large that it’s the equivalent of flying across the Atlantic 395 times. More of a road tripper than a frequent flyer? Here’s another way to look at it: according to Champion Traveler, a single space flight reportedly emits as much CO2 as 73 cars do in one year. And while Champion Traveler claims that these emissions represent a tiny fraction of the human race’s yearly CO2 output, one can’t help but wonder: is it really worth compromising the health of our planet? Even though it’s a small number, who knows how things will spiral out of control as space travel becomes more popular and accessible.
Wilkins Negating is wishful thinking, appropriating space reaps no benefits, simply because it won't happen Wilkins: Wilkins, Michael. Writer for ILLUMINATION, Professor of Language and Communications in Kobe Japan. “Sorry, We aren’t going to space” Medium 2021 JG Why won't it go much farther than that for a long, long time. Distance and cost. The moon, Mars, and the other planets in our solar system are borderline reachable, but they are uninhabitable rocks. To find a truly habitable planet where human civilization can thrive, we need to go to other solar systems. Unfortunately, they are realistically out of our reach. Alpha Centauri is the closest but, that is an impossible 4.3 light years away, over 40 trillion kilometers. Even without problems in transit, using current ion engines it would take over 80000 years. Even with the fastest engines we can realistically conceive of making, nuclear, the journey would take 1000 years. Read some discussion of the topic here. Not. Going. To. Happen. Not in our lifetime. Not in our children’s lifetime. Not in our grandchildren’s. Maybe sometime in the very distant future, we’ll discover wormholes or warp engines. But we need to face the fact they are pipe dreams past the horizon of time. They might even be impossible. The Earth is in trouble NOW! Climate change and pollution are serious problems. The population is ever-increasing and straining the capacity of the planet. Wealth inequality and conflict are rampant. Most governments and large private organizations are not responsive to the needs of the common people or the wider community of humanity. And worse of all, several nations have the capability of destroying the planet with WMDs and that club is growing.
Contention 2: Negating is Unjust Contention 2 My Second contention is Negating means perpetuating injustices, Appropriation means the rich get richer, oftentimes due to the exploitation of less fortunate individuals.
Ingram Privatization harms people for a plethora of reasons.
Ingram: Ingram, David. Manager at Five I Enterprises. “What Are the Three Pitfalls Associated With the Private Sector Market System?” Chron. 2019 JG
Inequality of Income The inevitable inequality of income is a major argument against pure private-sector economies. In these economies, entrepreneurs have an unprecedented ability to generate wealth, but generational cycles of wealth can introduce generational cycles of poverty as well. As generations pass, people born into poverty can find it increasingly difficult to take advantage of opportunities to rise out of poverty, and those opportunities can be hard to find. Without public education and financial assistance for higher education, for example, people born into poverty can find it impossible to learn and develop skills valued by the market economy. A pure private-sector economy also allows businesses to set any wages they choose for employees, even wages that are less than employees need to survive. Profit and Ethics Without government intervention, the profit motive can easily override ethical considerations in business. Without regulation, environmental pollution, wage discrimination and the sale of addictive and harmful substances can continue unchecked. Without firm guidelines and controls, the profit motive can lead businesses to do great harm to society by selling unsafe products, contributing to health epidemics and reducing the quality of life for poor people. A mixed market system can create justifiable opportunities for private businesses to stay within ethical boundaries, while a pure private-sector economy leaves little, if any, incentive to do so. Public Welfare With no government intervention, private businesses have no motivation or justification for providing goods and services to promote public welfare, especially when those activities fail to generate a profit. A pure private-sector economy leaves governments with little room to provide for public education, health care, food assistance and financial assistance during economic recessions. Governments exist for the benefit of people. Thus, public welfare should be their primary concern. The less control governments have over their countries' economies, the less influence they have to promote social justice and public welfare. Command and Mixed Economies Pure "command" economies present a radical alternative to pure private-sector economies. In command economies, all decisions related to the production and distribution of goods and services rest in the hands of a centralized government. This kind of system addresses each of the pitfalls of the private sector, while introducing its own set of disadvantages. Mixed economies combine elements of private-sector and command economies to mitigate the pitfalls of each and highlight their advantages. In the United States, for example, industries that present dangers to public health and welfare are highly regulated by federal authorities. In a mixed economy, private businesses and government can work together toward a more balanced, equitable economic structure.
Tarnoff Neg supported Public Private Collaborations deteriorate Democracy, considering democracy is the closest we can get to a just government, It deteriorates justice itself. Tarnoff: Tarnoff, Brett. Founding Editor of Logic. “How Privatization Could Spell The end Of Democracy” The Guardian 2017
A profit-driven system doesn’t mean we get more for our money – it means someone gets to make more money off of us. The healthcare industry posts record profits and rewards its chief executives with the highest salaries in the country. It takes a peculiar frame of mind to see this arrangement as anything resembling efficient. Attacking public services on the grounds of efficiency isn’t just incorrect, however – it’s beside the point. Decades of neoliberalism have corroded our capacity to think in non-economic terms. We’ve been taught that all fields of human life should be organized as markets, and that government should be run like a business. This ideology has found its perverse culmination in the figure of Donald Trump, a celebrity billionaire with no prior political experience who catapulted himself into the White House by invoking his expertise as an businessman. The premise of Trump’s campaign was that America didn’t need a president – it needed a CEO. Nowhere is the neoliberal faith embodied by Trump more deeply felt than in Silicon Valley. Tech entrepreneurs work tirelessly to turn more of our lives into markets and devote enormous resources towards “disrupting” government by privatizing its functions. Perhaps this is why, despite Silicon Valley’s veneer of liberal cosmopolitanism, it has a certain affinity for the president. On Monday, Trump met with top executives from Apple, Amazon, Google and other major tech firms to explore how to “unleash the creativity of the private sector to provide citizen services”, in the words of Jared Kushner. Between Trump and tech, never before have so many powerful people been so intent on transforming government into a business. But government isn’t a business; it’s a different kind of machine. At its worst, it can be repressive and corrupt and autocratic. At its best, it can be an invaluable tool for developing and sustaining a democratic society. Among other things, this includes ensuring that everyone receives the resources they need to exercise the freedoms on which democracy depends. When we privatize public services, we don’t just risk replacing them with less efficient alternatives – we risk damaging democracy itself. If this seems like a stretch, that’s because pundits and politicians have spent decades defining the idea of democracy downwards. It has come to mean little more than holding elections every few years. But this is the absolute minimum of democracy’s meaning. Its Greek root translates to “rule of the people” – not rule by certain people, such as the rich (plutocracy) or the priests (theocracy), but by all people. Democracy describes a way of organizing society in which the whole of the people determine how society should be organized.
Shammas and Holen Negating, and appropriating space invite capitalism with open arms Shammas and Holen: Shammas, Victor. Metropolitan University Oslo. Holen, Tomas. Independent Scholar Oslo “One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space”Palgrave Commun 2019
Outer space is becoming a space for capitalism. We are entering a new era of the commercialization of space, geared towards generating profits from satellite launches, space tourism, asteroid mining, and related ventures. This era, driven by private corporations such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origins, has been labeled by industry insiders as ‘NewSpace'—in contrast to ‘Old Space', a Cold War-era mode of space relations when (allegedly) slow-moving, sluggish states dominated outer space. NewSpace marks the arrival of capitalism in space. While challenging the libertarian rhetoric of its proponents—space enterprises remain enmeshed in the state, relying on funding, physical infrastructure, technology transfers, regulatory frameworks, and symbolic support—NewSpace nevertheless heralds a novel form of human activity in space. Despite its humanistic, universalizing pretensions, however, NewSpace does not benefit humankind as such but rather a specific set of wealthy entrepreneurs, many of them originating in Silicon Valley, who strategically deploy humanist tropes to engender enthusiasm for their activities. We describe this complex as ‘capitalistkind'. Moreover, the arrival of capitalism in space is fueled by the expansionary logic of capital accumulation. Outer space serves as a spatial fix, allowing capital to transcend its inherent terrestrial limitations. In this way, the ultimate spatial fix is perhaps (outer) space itself. Sharma Capitalism in space leads to ethical concerns, and inequalities that mirror what we see on earth today Sharma: Sharma, Maanas. The Space Review Writer. “The privatized frontier: the ethical implications and role of private companies in space exploration” The Space Review 2021
Another large ethical concern is the prominence capitalism may have in the future of private space exploration and the impacts thereof. The growth of private space companies in recent years has been closely intertwined with capitalism. Companies have largely focused on the most profitable projects, such as space travel and the business of space.7 Many companies are funded by individual billionaires, such as dearMoon, SpaceX’s upcoming mission to the Moon.8 Congress has also passed multiple acts for the purpose of reducing regulations on private space companies and securing private access to space. From this, many immediately jump to the conclusion that capitalism in space will recreate the same conditions in outer space that plague Earth today, especially with the increasing push to create a “space-for-space” economy, such as space tourism and new technologies to mine the Moon and asteroids. Critics, such as Jordan Pearson of VICE, believe that promises of “virtually unlimited resources” are only for the rich, and will perpetuate the growing wealth inequality that plagues the world today.9
Lenzen and Weidmann Underdeveloped nations are exploited and blamed for harms and dirty work of the rich
Lenzen and Weidmann: Lenzen, Manfred. University of Sydney. “Rich nations displace environmental damage to developing countries” PhysicsWorld 2018 Weidmann, Tommy. University of Sydney “Rich nations displace environmental damage to developing countries” PhysicsWorld 2018
Around a third of environmental and social impacts from consumption in wealthy nations is displaced to developing countries, according to the latest analysis. And that trend in outsourcing responsibility is increasing. “Many citizens of rich countries require the work of up to five poor people to satisfy their consumption,” said Manfred Lenzen of the University of Sydney, Australia. “Rich consumers like us are implicated in pollution and inequality all over the world, and people in poor countries bear the brunt of our large environmental and social footprints.” According to Tommy Wiedmann of UNSW Sydney, indirect effects facilitated by often complicated supply-chains are mostly hidden from consumers, who generally do not know where the raw ingredients of their purchases stem from.
As An Underview: Marx THE NC’S NON-UNIQUE – space exploration isn’t the same as appropriation, so we CAN get their benefits on the aff. Marx: Marx, Paris. Host of the Tech Won't Save Us podcast; author of Road to Nowhere: Silicon Valley and the Future of Mobility “Yes to Space Exploration. No to Space Capitalism.” Jacobin, June 8, 2020. https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/spacex-elon-musk-jeff-bezos-capitalism CH
Yes to Space Exploration. No to Space Capitalism. BY PARIS MARX Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk have a vision of space that serves the narrow interests of capitalists. But we don’t want to be indentured servants on a Martian colony — we want solar exploration that benefits humanity as a whole. On May 30, SpaceX finally launched astronauts into space more than two years behind schedule. President Donald Trump was on hand for the launch. After pushing for the militarization of space with the formation of the US Space Force, Trump fused his own vision with that of SpaceX founder Elon Musk, declaring, “We’ll soon be landing on Mars and we’ll soon have the greatest weapons ever imagined in history.” Early in Trump’s presidency, Musk faced criticism for being part of the administration’s advisory council and refusing to step down even as Trump signed his signature Muslim ban. It was believed Musk was hoping to benefit from greater public subsidies, on top of the billions NASA gave to SpaceX, and he’s set to do so as part of Trump’s plan to get astronauts back on the moon by 2024. More recently, the two have found themselves of the same mind on the pandemic as they shared misleading health information and Musk echoed Trump’s calls to “open the economy” and give people their “freedom” back. The May 30 launch symbolized both Trump’s desire to project an image of revived American greatness and Musk’s need not only to bolster the myth that makes his wealth possible, but to set the foundations for a privatized space industry.
He adds:
Space has been used by past US presidents to bolster American power and influence, but it was largely accepted that capitalism ended at the edge of the atmosphere. That’s no longer the case, and just as past capitalist expansions have come at the expense of poor and working people to enrich a small elite, so too will this one. Bezos and Trump may have a public feud, but that doesn’t mean that their mutual interest isn’t served by a renewed US push into space that funnels massive public funds into private pockets and seeks to open celestial bodies to capitalist resource extraction. This is not to say that we need to halt space exploration. The collective interest of humanity is served by learning more about the solar system and the universe beyond, but the goal of such missions must be driven by gaining scientific knowledge and enhancing global cooperation, not nationalism and profit-making. Yet that’s exactly what the space billionaires and American authoritarians have found common cause in, with Trump declaring that “a new age of American ambition has now begun” at a NASA press briefing just hours before cities across the country were placed under curfew last week. Before space can be explored in a way that benefits all of humankind, existing social relations must be transformed, not extended into the stars as part of a new colonial project.
2/20/22
Outer Space Aff Case
Tournament: Malcom A Bump Memorial an NYCFL Event | Round: 1 | Opponent: Bronx Science NB | Judge: Anaya Zachery I. Interpretations
Resolution I affirm, the appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust
Appropriation Oxford Languages defines appropriation as the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.
Private Entities Private entities as defined by Law Insider is Private entities means individuals or organizations other than federal, state, or local personnel or agencies.
II. Framework
Value Since the resolution is a question of justice surrounding inessential actions, I value Justice
Criterion Since stability means preserving balance in society, my criterion is maintaining a system of checks. Maintaining a system of checks entails ensuring no private entity abuses their higher power to disrupt societal well being.
Contention 1: The Harms Outweigh the Good
Contention 1 My first contention is the harms of space travel outweigh the benefits, and with space travel not being a necessity, It's unjust and pointless
Mallick Outer space is too hard to regulate, and the harms to the economy are too strong
Mallick: Mallick, Senjuti. ILS Law school “If space is a province to mankind who owns it’s resources” Observer Research Foundation 2016
Half a century after the first United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, the current debates are focused on new sets of challenges such as space mining, which used to belong only to the realm of science fiction. This paper analyses the rationale for extraterrestrial mining, as well as the efforts and responses of various countries—i.e, USA, Luxembourg, Russia, China and India. In examining the legal and governance basis for States and commercial players, this paper appreciates the economic benefits of space mining but argues against the national legislations legalising extraterrestrial appropriation of resources due to inconsistency with international treaties and customary international law. It further argues that the concept of “common heritage of mankind” is defeated in the light of such legal frameworks. The paper ponders the global governance challenges brought about by space mining activities and suggests legal, policy and global frameworks for realising the benefits of commercial mining without creating disparity between nations and disrupting dynamics of the world economy.
Tabit Space appropriation kills the environment, and the more we normalize it, the worse the planet will get Tabit: Tabit, Jesse. West Virginia University “Space Travel Is Great, but According to This, You Won’t Have a Planet to Come Home To” Fedor’s Travel 2019
While these plans may sound awesome in theory, their side effects…are less so. At least, according to a recent analysis from travel site Champion Traveler which concluded that one trip aboard SpaceX’s Falcon emits a carbon footprint so large that it’s the equivalent of flying across the Atlantic 395 times. More of a road tripper than a frequent flyer? Here’s another way to look at it: according to Champion Traveler, a single space flight reportedly emits as much CO2 as 73 cars do in one year. And while Champion Traveler claims that these emissions represent a tiny fraction of the human race’s yearly CO2 output, one can’t help but wonder: is it really worth compromising the health of our planet? Even though it’s a small number, who knows how things will spiral out of control as space travel becomes more popular and accessible.
Reimann Private companies are appropriating space for the wrong reasons, and are increasing economic disparity
Reimann: Reimann, Nicholas. Forbes Business Writer Leaving A Planet In Crisis: Here’s Why Many Say The Billionaire Space Race Is A Terrible Idea Forbes 2021
The driving force behind space travel has shifted away from its long history of massive government projects to private industry over the past few years. SpaceX’s May 2020 launch of two NASA astronauts from Kennedy Space Center in Florida marked the first manned launch from U.S. soil since 2011, with SpaceX becoming the first private company to send astronauts to the International Space Station during the same mission. Musk’s company has since been chosen as the sole company that will create spacecraft for NASA’s upcoming Artemis mission to send astronauts back to the Moon, beating out Blue Origin for the contract. But the shift to privatization hasn’t just put billionaire’s companies at the forefront of scientific achievements—it’s accelerated the push for space tourism programs, which for now come with price tags solely restricted to the ultrawealthy. There’s also already been talk of luxury space hotels. Orbital Assembly Corp. announced plans earlier this year for a 280-guest hotel called Voyager Station, which it said will open in 2027. The company hopes to work with SpaceX as a partner on the project. $6 billion. That’s how much money it would take to save 41 million people set to die of hunger this year worldwide, according to UN World Food Program Executive Director David Beasley. Beasley sent a tweet late last month urging Musk, Branson and Bezos to team up to fight hunger, saying, “We can solve this quickly!”
Impact The impact is that appropriating space allocates money the wrong way. We need to look to our own planet first, people are suffering, and the appropriation of outer space by rich corporation owners can't be just when we see how much money is wasted in space instead of helping our own people. Appropriation of space creates an unhealthy dynamic that sharpens economic disparity, and disincentivizes a fair society. Space is not our number one priority right now, so to have money wasted already when we can't solve our own problems is unjust.
Lichtenstein Space appropriation as a whole is impossible to justify, because there are too many potential harms
Lichtenstein: Lichtenstein, Drew. Harvard. Senior advisor of HarvardX “Bad things About Space Exploration” Sciencing 2018 Tied in with the question of cost and risk of human life is the question of justification. Space exploration appeals to the human desire to learn about the universe; however, it does not have any straightforward, pragmatic application. While there may be some practical use in the distant future, such as possibly colonizing other planets, it is difficult to justify continued space exploration to people who are worried about immediate concerns, such as crime or the economy.
Impact The impact is that space travel is a relatively new revelation, and we don't know the ins and outs of space yet as a whole. Space appropriation can't be just when we rely on private entities, because with all of these potential fears in mind, private entities will use space for their own benefit, and leave the rest of the world to bask in the potential harms to the economy or human rights. We can't have colonization, and we don't know what people like Bezos are capable of.
Manning Space activities are uncharted and oftentimes reckless Manning: Manning, Robert. Former Advisor to the Secretary of State. “The Dangers of Anarchy In Space” The Hill 2021. I can’t think of a more dramatic illustration of how reckless actions in space put all at grave risk than Russia’s recent anti-satellite (ASAT) test blowing up one of its own defunct satellites and creating a cloud of more than 1,500 pieces of space debris. Even small pieces of debris, when traveling at some 17,000 miles per hour, can cause horrific damage to satellites, disrupting the space infrastructure that is the nervous system of modern life. Moscow’s test forced astronauts (including its own cosmonauts) on board the International Space Station (ISS) to take emergency safety measures for fear of collision. Moscow’s test followed a similarly dangerous Chinese ASAT test in 2007, and a U.S. ASAT test (though designed to minimize debris) in 2008. All this reflects a troubling anarchy in the cosmos, a militarization of space, one ill-conceived aspect of unrestrained arms racing, the pathology of this era of great power competition. Space junk is inadvertent, but satellites that can kill or disable satellites and cyber jamming highlight the military risks. The anti-space antics also reveal the mutual vulnerabilities that should spark a rethink of current policies in the interest of self-preservation. Impact The impact is that accidents in space can lead to detrimental and irreversible consequences. Many major world governments like America, Russia, and China have caused accidents in space that have led to debris being spread everywhere at dangerously high speeds. If even well funded world superpowers are making mistakes in space, leading to danger, It would be impractical to assume that private entities with restricted access to money and resources wouldn't cause these same accidents. If we allow for appropriation of outer space by private entities, space will be filled up at a higher rate. leading to more accidents, and private entities however rich they are don't have the correct experience to be going into space and potentially harming world order with more accidents. Manning 2 The outer space treaty solves these issues, sticking to the treaty means prohibiting appropriation of outer space Manning: Manning, Robert. Former Advisor to the Secretary of State. “The Dangers of Anarchy In Space” The Hill 2021.
Moreover, an already crowded Earth orbit is getting more so. The private sector has entered the space business with new technologies enabling the miniaturization of satellites, called Cubesats, some no bigger than a shoebox. Google, Amazon and Elon Musk’s SpaceX plan to launch some 50,000 such satellites in this decade. These are all at risk from 27,000 pieces of space debris, tracked by the Department of Defense’s impressive Space Surveillance Network (SSN), as well as by some half a million smaller pieces, the size of marbles. With both satellites and debris traveling at roughly 17,000 miles an hour, collisions could be catastrophic. Yet there is a paucity of rules governing behavior in space, which, like sea, air and cyber, are global commons. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) is the one accord signed by all major space-faring nations, 197 nations in all. They agreed to the principles in the OST, which says: “Exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. and shall be the province of all mankind.”
Contention 2: Space Appropriation Is not necessary
Contention 2 My second contention is that space appropriation by private entities is not necessary in any society. We already have laws in place that prevent appropriation by nations, so to give the right of appropriation to private entities would be an unnecessary risk that undermines well respected laws already in existence, making it impossible to justify
United Nations Department of Outer Space Affairs The outer space treaty has already been created, and respected by major nations. These laws specifically prohibit appropriation, and are supported by UN members UN: Excerpt from the outer space Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies 1976.
The Outer Space Treaty was considered by the Legal Subcommittee in 1966 and agreement was reached in the General Assembly in the same year ( resolution 2222 (XXI)). The Treaty was largely based on the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, which had been adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 1962 (XVIII) in 1963, but added a few new provisions. The Treaty was opened for signature by the three depository Governments (the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States of America) in January 1967, and it entered into force in October 1967. The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space law, including the following principles: the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind; outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States; outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means; States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner; the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes; astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind; States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities; States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.
Impact The impact is that all members of the United Nations have abided by this treaty since 1967. It has been well respected, and has applied a reliable and stable framework on space law. 193 nations agree that appropriation in space should be avoided. If we give private entities the power to appropriate space, that violates the outer space treaty itself, and the agreement of 193 nations. It is unjustifiable to destroy the principles of law that protect the status quo so rich corporations get richer. Outer space was never meant to be subject to appropriation by anyone and this is reflected in the status quo.
Grush The outer space treaty is a fair and reliable check on all outer space affairs including appropriation Grush: Grush, Loren. Senior Reporter for ABC, New York Times, and The Verge How an international treaty signed 50 years ago became the backbone for space law The Verge 2017
The Outer Space Treaty was never intended to be comprehensive, though. Created when space travel was in its infancy, the agreement was meant to address issues that could arise as space technology advanced. So it is somewhat flexible in its interpretation, as well as limited. But the treaty has still acted as the foundation for every piece of space legislation that has been created in the past half century. “It’s essentially the most important and most fundamental source of international space law,” Christopher Johnson, the space law adviser for the Secure World Foundation, tells The Verge. “All international space law follows from it and all national space activities fall under the treaty.” Here are some of the biggest impacts the Outer Space Treaty has had in its 50-year history: Right away, the Outer Space Treaty establishes that all nations should have free access to space, and that exploration of the cosmos should be a peaceful enterprise. Such exploration should also be done “for the benefit and in the interests of all countries,” quickly setting up the importance for international cooperation in the realm of space travel. But immediately after creating this “fair use” of space, the treaty makes one important caveat: space and celestial bodies cannot be appropriated by a nation. That means a country can’t claim the Moon as its own, for instance. The motivation was to prevent space land grabs, similar to the territorial claims that plagued the exploration of Antarctica in the first half of 1900s.
Impact The impact is that the outer space treaty was created to prepare for changes in space exploration. The United Nations were prepared for technology to advance, and created the treaty to protect the rights of people. The treaty still stands as an impactful set of laws that keeps people stable and safe, and checks any nation or group wanting to gain too much power. The treaty undoubtedly keeps the general public safe from harms of appropriation, and with that in mind makes appropriation not only unjustifiable, but definitely unjust. Following the treaty is the best course of action for stability through checks.
Because appropriation leads to economic harms and corporations getting too much power, as well as a disruption to world order beyond the realm of justice I affirm and stand ready for cross ex.
I Affirm II. Framework Value As the topic prescribes, I value Justice, meaning a social system that respects each person’s membership in society. While citizens have different views on key issues, just governments must determine who is due what based on the core values that citizens share. Daniels Further, since people are morally equal at birth, states must ensure them baseline social equality. Daniels: Daniels, Norman. Professor of Philosophy, Harvard University “Democratic Equality: Rawls’s Complex Egalitarianism.” In Samuel Richard Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge University Press, 2003. CH
Because of their interest in recognitional equality, when contractors choose principles they must assure all citizens that the terms of cooperation sustain their sense of self-respect. Self-respect is sustained when there is a basis for each to recognize and respond to others as equal citizens. The fundamental importance of protecting the capability of all to participate in democratic processes and public life, and of not simply assuming people formal rights that might be thought empty of real meaning or effect, derives from this concern to protect the recognitional components of equality. Those who are best off must retain the awareness that the worst off are still equal and worthy participants in the democratic regulation of society. Those who are worst off must continue to see themselves as worthy equals-- in participation, in opportunity, and in the interest they have in pursuing their ends -- or they will not be able to sustain their self-respect and thus their participation. A key reason for insisting that the term “democratic equality” refers to the all three principles of justice, and not just to fair equality of opportunity and the difference principle, derives from the importance of this egalitarian idea about the social bases of self-respect, with its echo of Rousseau.” Standard Thus, my criterion is Promoting Social Inclusion. Promoting Social Inclusion means increasing all peoples’ ability to have a say in the conditions that govern them. As this criterion is about increasing access to political and social rights, arguments that only discuss economic benefits or harms from outer space aren’t relevant to the issue of inclusion.
Further, The Standard looks at structural inclusion, so it's not sufficient for the Neg to say particular instances can increase inclusion. Instead, The Neg must show that they increase overall inclusion within society. Weigh the round based on which debater provides more overall access to social goods.
Contention 1: Harms Contention 1 My first contention is the harms from appropriation and space endeavors outweigh any gain. Negating isn't worth the harms
Reimann Private companies are appropriating space for the wrong reasons, and are increasing economic disparity
Reimann: Reimann, Nicholas. Forbes Business Writer Leaving A Planet In Crisis: Here’s Why Many Say The Billionaire Space Race Is A Terrible Idea Forbes 2021
The driving force behind space travel has shifted away from its long history of massive government projects to private industry over the past few years. SpaceX’s May 2020 launch of two NASA astronauts from Kennedy Space Center in Florida marked the first manned launch from U.S. soil since 2011, with SpaceX becoming the first private company to send astronauts to the International Space Station during the same mission. Musk’s company has since been chosen as the sole company that will create spacecraft for NASA’s upcoming Artemis mission to send astronauts back to the Moon, beating out Blue Origin for the contract. But the shift to privatization hasn’t just put billionaire’s companies at the forefront of scientific achievements—it’s accelerated the push for space tourism programs, which for now come with price tags solely restricted to the ultrawealthy. There’s also already been talk of luxury space hotels. Orbital Assembly Corp. announced plans earlier this year for a 280-guest hotel called Voyager Station, which it said will open in 2027. The company hopes to work with SpaceX as a partner on the project. $6 billion. That’s how much money it would take to save 41 million people set to die of hunger this year worldwide, according to UN World Food Program Executive Director David Beasley. Beasley sent a tweet late last month urging Musk, Branson and Bezos to team up to fight hunger, saying, “We can solve this quickly!”
King Appropriation of space will come at detrimental costs to companies with a profit motive King: King, Lyon. Michigan Technological University. “Space Tech has Outpaced Space Law, and we’re at risk of killing Innovation” Tech Crunch 2018
“Disruption” is a term (over)used in the technology world to describe some development or product that is inherently good. The formal definition of the term, however, is at odds with its casual use: a disruption is a “disturbance or problem that interrupts an event, activity, or process.” Right now, space tech is currently experiencing both flavors of disruption. Reliable estimates indicate that within the next 5-7 years, the inhabitants of the Earth will launch more satellites into space than have been launched in the history of our planet up until now. This is a disruption in the best sense; however, there’s a serious problem: we’re at a very real risk of crushing our own excitement and stalling our progress toward the stars. Space policy hasn’t been high on our government’s to-do list, and this unfortunate regulatory neglect means that today’s most innovative companies’ plans are being disrupted by stuffy, antiquated rules and regulations.------------------Faced with the prospect of this, there’s no doubt that ambitious and bold startups will be tempted to push the boundaries and see just how severe the penalties will be for operating sans permit (and in fact, that seems to be the path taken by the Swarm team). At this point, nobody really knows what the real consequences are. In the worst case, they will destroy the entire business of the startup that dares, but then bankruptcy might have been pretty much guaranteed anyway, based on the undetermined time of the FCC appeal process.
Manning Space activities are uncharted and oftentimes reckless Manning: Manning, Robert. Former Advisor to the Secretary of State. “The Dangers of Anarchy In Space” The Hill 2021. I can’t think of a more dramatic illustration of how reckless actions in space put all at grave risk than Russia’s recent anti-satellite (ASAT) test blowing up one of its own defunct satellites and creating a cloud of more than 1,500 pieces of space debris. Even small pieces of debris, when traveling at some 17,000 miles per hour, can cause horrific damage to satellites, disrupting the space infrastructure that is the nervous system of modern life. Moscow’s test forced astronauts (including its own cosmonauts) on board the International Space Station (ISS) to take emergency safety measures for fear of collision. Moscow’s test followed a similarly dangerous Chinese ASAT test in 2007, and a U.S. ASAT test (though designed to minimize debris) in 2008. All this reflects a troubling anarchy in the cosmos, a militarization of space, one ill-conceived aspect of unrestrained arms racing, the pathology of this era of great power competition. Space junk is inadvertent, but satellites that can kill or disable satellites and cyber jamming highlight the military risks. The anti-space antics also reveal the mutual vulnerabilities that should spark a rethink of current policies in the interest of self-preservation.
Tabit Space Appropriation increases the use of harmful rockets. Private sector appropriation will increase rocket usage, and harm the environment badly Tabit: Tabit, Jesse. West Virginia University “Space Travel Is Great, but According to This, You Won’t Have a Planet to Come Home To” Fedor’s Travel 2019
While these plans may sound awesome in theory, their side effects…are less so. At least, according to a recent analysis from travel site Champion Traveler which concluded that one trip aboard SpaceX’s Falcon emits a carbon footprint so large that it’s the equivalent of flying across the Atlantic 395 times. More of a road tripper than a frequent flyer? Here’s another way to look at it: according to Champion Traveler, a single space flight reportedly emits as much CO2 as 73 cars do in one year. And while Champion Traveler claims that these emissions represent a tiny fraction of the human race’s yearly CO2 output, one can’t help but wonder: is it really worth compromising the health of our planet? Even though it’s a small number, who knows how things will spiral out of control as space travel becomes more popular and accessible.
Contention 2: Negating is Unjust Contention 2 My Second contention is Negating means perpetuating injustices, Appropriation means the rich get richer, oftentimes due to the exploitation of less fortunate individuals.
Ingram Privatization harms people for a plethora of reasons.
Ingram: Ingram, David. Manager at Five I Enterprises. “What Are the Three Pitfalls Associated With the Private Sector Market System?” Chron. 2019 JG
Inequality of Income The inevitable inequality of income is a major argument against pure private-sector economies. In these economies, entrepreneurs have an unprecedented ability to generate wealth, but generational cycles of wealth can introduce generational cycles of poverty as well. As generations pass, people born into poverty can find it increasingly difficult to take advantage of opportunities to rise out of poverty, and those opportunities can be hard to find. Without public education and financial assistance for higher education, for example, people born into poverty can find it impossible to learn and develop skills valued by the market economy. A pure private-sector economy also allows businesses to set any wages they choose for employees, even wages that are less than employees need to survive. Profit and Ethics Without government intervention, the profit motive can easily override ethical considerations in business. Without regulation, environmental pollution, wage discrimination and the sale of addictive and harmful substances can continue unchecked. Without firm guidelines and controls, the profit motive can lead businesses to do great harm to society by selling unsafe products, contributing to health epidemics and reducing the quality of life for poor people. A mixed market system can create justifiable opportunities for private businesses to stay within ethical boundaries, while a pure private-sector economy leaves little, if any, incentive to do so. Public Welfare With no government intervention, private businesses have no motivation or justification for providing goods and services to promote public welfare, especially when those activities fail to generate a profit. A pure private-sector economy leaves governments with little room to provide for public education, health care, food assistance and financial assistance during economic recessions. Governments exist for the benefit of people. Thus, public welfare should be their primary concern. The less control governments have over their countries' economies, the less influence they have to promote social justice and public welfare. Command and Mixed Economies Pure "command" economies present a radical alternative to pure private-sector economies. In command economies, all decisions related to the production and distribution of goods and services rest in the hands of a centralized government. This kind of system addresses each of the pitfalls of the private sector, while introducing its own set of disadvantages. Mixed economies combine elements of private-sector and command economies to mitigate the pitfalls of each and highlight their advantages. In the United States, for example, industries that present dangers to public health and welfare are highly regulated by federal authorities. In a mixed economy, private businesses and government can work together toward a more balanced, equitable economic structure.
Tarnoff Neg supported Public Private Collaborations deteriorate Democracy, considering democracy is the closest we can get to a just government, It deteriorates justice itself. Tarnoff: Tarnoff, Brett. Founding Editor of Logic. “How Privatization Could Spell The end Of Democracy” The Guardian 2017
A profit-driven system doesn’t mean we get more for our money – it means someone gets to make more money off of us. The healthcare industry posts record profits and rewards its chief executives with the highest salaries in the country. It takes a peculiar frame of mind to see this arrangement as anything resembling efficient. Attacking public services on the grounds of efficiency isn’t just incorrect, however – it’s beside the point. Decades of neoliberalism have corroded our capacity to think in non-economic terms. We’ve been taught that all fields of human life should be organized as markets, and that government should be run like a business. This ideology has found its perverse culmination in the figure of Donald Trump, a celebrity billionaire with no prior political experience who catapulted himself into the White House by invoking his expertise as an businessman. The premise of Trump’s campaign was that America didn’t need a president – it needed a CEO. Nowhere is the neoliberal faith embodied by Trump more deeply felt than in Silicon Valley. Tech entrepreneurs work tirelessly to turn more of our lives into markets and devote enormous resources towards “disrupting” government by privatizing its functions. Perhaps this is why, despite Silicon Valley’s veneer of liberal cosmopolitanism, it has a certain affinity for the president. On Monday, Trump met with top executives from Apple, Amazon, Google and other major tech firms to explore how to “unleash the creativity of the private sector to provide citizen services”, in the words of Jared Kushner. Between Trump and tech, never before have so many powerful people been so intent on transforming government into a business. But government isn’t a business; it’s a different kind of machine. At its worst, it can be repressive and corrupt and autocratic. At its best, it can be an invaluable tool for developing and sustaining a democratic society. Among other things, this includes ensuring that everyone receives the resources they need to exercise the freedoms on which democracy depends. When we privatize public services, we don’t just risk replacing them with less efficient alternatives – we risk damaging democracy itself. If this seems like a stretch, that’s because pundits and politicians have spent decades defining the idea of democracy downwards. It has come to mean little more than holding elections every few years. But this is the absolute minimum of democracy’s meaning. Its Greek root translates to “rule of the people” – not rule by certain people, such as the rich (plutocracy) or the priests (theocracy), but by all people. Democracy describes a way of organizing society in which the whole of the people determine how society should be organized.
Shammas and Holen Negating, and appropriating space invite capitalism with open arms Shammas and Holen: Shammas, Victor. Metropolitan University Oslo. Holen, Tomas. Independent Scholar Oslo “One giant leap for capitalistkind: private enterprise in outer space”Palgrave Commun 2019
Outer space is becoming a space for capitalism. We are entering a new era of the commercialization of space, geared towards generating profits from satellite launches, space tourism, asteroid mining, and related ventures. This era, driven by private corporations such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origins, has been labeled by industry insiders as ‘NewSpace'—in contrast to ‘Old Space', a Cold War-era mode of space relations when (allegedly) slow-moving, sluggish states dominated outer space. NewSpace marks the arrival of capitalism in space. While challenging the libertarian rhetoric of its proponents—space enterprises remain enmeshed in the state, relying on funding, physical infrastructure, technology transfers, regulatory frameworks, and symbolic support—NewSpace nevertheless heralds a novel form of human activity in space. Despite its humanistic, universalizing pretensions, however, NewSpace does not benefit humankind as such but rather a specific set of wealthy entrepreneurs, many of them originating in Silicon Valley, who strategically deploy humanist tropes to engender enthusiasm for their activities. We describe this complex as ‘capitalistkind'. Moreover, the arrival of capitalism in space is fueled by the expansionary logic of capital accumulation. Outer space serves as a spatial fix, allowing capital to transcend its inherent terrestrial limitations. In this way, the ultimate spatial fix is perhaps (outer) space itself. Sharma Capitalism in space leads to ethical concerns, and inequalities that mirror what we see on earth today Sharma: Sharma, Maanas. The Space Review Writer. “The privatized frontier: the ethical implications and role of private companies in space exploration” The Space Review 2021
Another large ethical concern is the prominence capitalism may have in the future of private space exploration and the impacts thereof. The growth of private space companies in recent years has been closely intertwined with capitalism. Companies have largely focused on the most profitable projects, such as space travel and the business of space.7 Many companies are funded by individual billionaires, such as dearMoon, SpaceX’s upcoming mission to the Moon.8 Congress has also passed multiple acts for the purpose of reducing regulations on private space companies and securing private access to space. From this, many immediately jump to the conclusion that capitalism in space will recreate the same conditions in outer space that plague Earth today, especially with the increasing push to create a “space-for-space” economy, such as space tourism and new technologies to mine the Moon and asteroids. Critics, such as Jordan Pearson of VICE, believe that promises of “virtually unlimited resources” are only for the rich, and will perpetuate the growing wealth inequality that plagues the world today.9
Lenzen and Weidmann Underdeveloped nations are exploited and blamed for harms and dirty work of the rich
Lenzen and Weidmann: Lenzen, Manfred. University of Sydney. “Rich nations displace environmental damage to developing countries” PhysicsWorld 2018 Weidmann, Tommy. University of Sydney “Rich nations displace environmental damage to developing countries” PhysicsWorld 2018
Around a third of environmental and social impacts from consumption in wealthy nations is displaced to developing countries, according to the latest analysis. And that trend in outsourcing responsibility is increasing. “Many citizens of rich countries require the work of up to five poor people to satisfy their consumption,” said Manfred Lenzen of the University of Sydney, Australia. “Rich consumers like us are implicated in pollution and inequality all over the world, and people in poor countries bear the brunt of our large environmental and social footprints.” According to Tommy Wiedmann of UNSW Sydney, indirect effects facilitated by often complicated supply-chains are mostly hidden from consumers, who generally do not know where the raw ingredients of their purchases stem from.
As An Underview: Marx THE NC’S NON-UNIQUE – space exploration isn’t the same as appropriation, so we CAN get their benefits on the aff. Marx: Marx, Paris. Host of the Tech Won't Save Us podcast; author of Road to Nowhere: Silicon Valley and the Future of Mobility “Yes to Space Exploration. No to Space Capitalism.” Jacobin, June 8, 2020. https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/spacex-elon-musk-jeff-bezos-capitalism CH
Yes to Space Exploration. No to Space Capitalism. BY PARIS MARX Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk have a vision of space that serves the narrow interests of capitalists. But we don’t want to be indentured servants on a Martian colony — we want solar exploration that benefits humanity as a whole. On May 30, SpaceX finally launched astronauts into space more than two years behind schedule. President Donald Trump was on hand for the launch. After pushing for the militarization of space with the formation of the US Space Force, Trump fused his own vision with that of SpaceX founder Elon Musk, declaring, “We’ll soon be landing on Mars and we’ll soon have the greatest weapons ever imagined in history.” Early in Trump’s presidency, Musk faced criticism for being part of the administration’s advisory council and refusing to step down even as Trump signed his signature Muslim ban. It was believed Musk was hoping to benefit from greater public subsidies, on top of the billions NASA gave to SpaceX, and he’s set to do so as part of Trump’s plan to get astronauts back on the moon by 2024. More recently, the two have found themselves of the same mind on the pandemic as they shared misleading health information and Musk echoed Trump’s calls to “open the economy” and give people their “freedom” back. The May 30 launch symbolized both Trump’s desire to project an image of revived American greatness and Musk’s need not only to bolster the myth that makes his wealth possible, but to set the foundations for a privatized space industry.
He adds:
Space has been used by past US presidents to bolster American power and influence, but it was largely accepted that capitalism ended at the edge of the atmosphere. That’s no longer the case, and just as past capitalist expansions have come at the expense of poor and working people to enrich a small elite, so too will this one. Bezos and Trump may have a public feud, but that doesn’t mean that their mutual interest isn’t served by a renewed US push into space that funnels massive public funds into private pockets and seeks to open celestial bodies to capitalist resource extraction. This is not to say that we need to halt space exploration. The collective interest of humanity is served by learning more about the solar system and the universe beyond, but the goal of such missions must be driven by gaining scientific knowledge and enhancing global cooperation, not nationalism and profit-making. Yet that’s exactly what the space billionaires and American authoritarians have found common cause in, with Trump declaring that “a new age of American ambition has now begun” at a NASA press briefing just hours before cities across the country were placed under curfew last week. Before space can be explored in a way that benefits all of humankind, existing social relations must be transformed, not extended into the stars as part of a new colonial project.