Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byClaud Austin Modified over 9 years ago
1
To everything--turn, turn, turn…
2
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
3
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”
4
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
5
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”
6
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)
7
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
8
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
9
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
10
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)
11
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
12
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
13
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
14
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…
15
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)
16
Get off the Rock [cont’d] Other reasons to go to space include Averted lives (Bostrum) Cultural renewal Life ethic Overview effect Tech spinoffs
17
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
18
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”
19
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
20
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)
21
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
22
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
23
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])
24
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
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.