To everything--turn, turn, turn…

Overview

Discuss major “topic impacts” Discuss how to prepare for and win

impact debates Impacts discussed will include

Leadership Growth Colonization/’Get Off the Rock” Future Tech

Impact #1: Leadership Also called “hegemony” or “heg”, or

sometimes “preponderance” Like many impacts, is debated as both

“heg good” and “heg bad” Leadership is divided along two axes

Hard power: military and economic might Soft power: cultural and ideological

attractiveness Impact modules exist for both “heg

good/bad” and “soft power good/bad” Term to know: “Space Leadership”

Leadership [cont’d]

Heg good thesis: U.S. influence serves an important balancing and stabilizing function, and a U.S. withdrawal would spur conflicts as states move rapidly to fill the power vacuum (Khalilzad ‘95)

Common impact scenarios include: Great power wars (global nuclear war) East Asian wars European wars South Asia wars Mideast wars Economic collapse Terrorism Proliferation—allied and adventurist Democracy Competitor states bad—Russia, China Revisionist states bad—Iran, North Korea, Venezuela

Leadership [cont’d]

Heg bad thesis: U.S. intervention in the affairs of other states risks the U.S. getting drawn into wars, and increases resentment/blowback against the U.S.

Common “heg bad” scenarios include: Terrorism Proliferation Economy (overstretch) China containment bad/resentment Russia containment bad/resentment Arms racing/super weapons Democracy (domestic and international) Regional wars everywhere the other side says “heg is

good”

Leadership [cont’d]

Soft power good thesis: Actions that increase the international standing of the U.S. (such as human exploration) are good/actions that decrease the international standing of the U.S. are bad

Common scenarios include: Economy Disease Terrorism Environment (general) Warming Proliferation (cooperation internals, esp. Iran)

Leadership [cont’d]

Soft power bad thesis: increasing the international reputation of the U.S. allows it to encourage other states to do bad things

Common impact scenarios include: Missile defense deployments bad Iran containment/attack bad Terrorism/counterterrorism bad Democracy promotion bad

Leadership [cont’d]

Keys to winning a heg debate: Control short-term uniquenes—heg

high/low now Control long-term uniqueness—is heg

sustainable? Emphasize timeframe arguments (every

impact will have the same magnitude) Have MORE scenarios than your opponent Read defense against your opponent’s

impacts

Impact #2: Growth

Is continued economic growth good or bad? Conventional wisdom says “good”, but there are a lot of good cards either way

Debates tend to center on the relationship between economic expansion and Frequency and intensity of conflict/war Environmental destruction and preservation

Will most commonly be encountered as a disad (esp. politics) impact

Useful because can be used to turn everything

Growth [cont’d]

“Growth good” tends to assume that it is inevitable, hardwired into the human condition, and is capable of self-correction (solving the problems it produces via tech, ingenuity and wealth)

Typical impacts include: War (parallels to WW2) Space (turns the case) Environment (wealth effect)

Growth [cont’d]

“Growth bad” tends to assume that economic expansion occurs within a finite resource/environmental systems that are incapable of supporting continued growth

Typical impacts include: War (K-wave theory, upswing wars) Environmental collapse, w/ various

scenarios Equity/ethics

Growth [cont’d]

THE key question—will human ingenuity be able to keep ahead of impending pollution and scarcity problems Space exploration complicates this in

multiple ways Should get to understand

explanations for WW2—are used on both sides

Impact #3: Get off the Rock Should humans endeavor to avoid

the problems of living on Earth by moving into outer space

Is inextricably linked with questions of Resource utilization (including energy) Colonization

Will be ubiquitous on the topic—an advantage to many affirmative cases

Get Off the Rock [cont’d] Colonization considerations include:

Location—Lunar, Martian, Orbital Design—Dyson spheres, orbital rings,

can colonies, etc Harm mitigation—radiation, gravity Life support provision—oxygen, water,

energy, food KEY QUESTION—where will the energy

and construction materials come from…

Get Off the Rock [cont’d] Threats that could be addressed by a

move to space Cosmic disasters Environmental destruction (including

climate change) Nuclear war Resource shortages (over-affluence) Tech disasters (more in section #4)

Get off the Rock [cont’d] Other reasons to go to space include

Averted lives (Bostrum) Cultural renewal Life ethic Overview effect Tech spinoffs

Get off the Rock [cont’d] Reasons to avoid shifting to space

include Aggressive aliens Equality concerns Escapism concerns Launch disads—debris, ozone, warming Space Diseases

Impact #4: Future Tech

Expanding the exploration and development of space is strongly linked with continued technological development Space explorations SPURS innovation,

leading to new technologies and applications Space exploration is ENABLED by

technological advancement Many advantages and disadvantages will

touch upon questions of “near future technologies”

Future Tech [cont’d] Fields with rapidly developing technologies

include Artificial intelligence (singularity) Biotechnology/synthetic biology Human/machine interface (cybernetics) Nanotechnology Robotics

These fields are also characterized by “convergence”—the merging of previously distinct zones of technology

New development: self-replication

Future Tech [cont’d]

Three basic schools of thought about technology Optimists (utopians)—new tech is

awesome, no worries, mate Pessimists—new technologies are

disruptive and dangerous, and must be controlled (Joy, Rifkin, etc.)

Pragmatists—tech development is inevitable, should use regulations to maximize the good and minimize the bad (Kurzweil, Rees)

Future Tech [cont’d]

Optimists generally believe that Most technologies are benign or

beneficial Most humans are good/behave

responsibly Regulatory regimes can be minimally

invasive

Future Tech [cont’d]

Pessimists generally believe that Some technologies have pathological

tendencies and malignant effects (they enable “evil”)

Many humans will behave selfishly, a-morally, or with evil intent

Regulatory regimes should be designed to stunt the development of dangerous technologies

Future Tech [cont’d]

Pragmatists generally believe that Technologies tend to be neutral—their ethical

merits depend on the user Humans tend to use technology towards

beneficial ends, but there are some “bad apples”

Regulatory regimes should be designed to promote the development of defensive technologies

Technological advancement cannot be stopped (law of exponential returns [Kurzweil])

Politics Impacts Most of these apply to both elections

and agenda Debt ceiling Trade deals (SKFTA, CFTA, PFTA) CTBT Immigration reform Climate change Patent Reform