Overfishing aff inherency

Bio-d I/L

Biodiversity is key to food security, provides the best food options

The world population is expected to reach nine billion by 2050. In terms of food availability, global food production will need to rise by about 60%. Food production depends largely on biodiversity and on the services provided by ecosystems. We would not have the thousands and thousands of different crop varieties and animal breeds without the rich genetic pool of the species they originated from. Natural resource degradation, including the loss of biodiversity and the erosion of genetic diversity, is one of the major problems in food production today. Biological diversity and the related ecosystem services are crucial to cope with changes and achieve food security for all. Addressing food security and biodiversity requires appropriate practices and adequate policies. Supporting the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, including through local knowledge and the traditional management practices associated with them, is necessary to enable farming systems to continue to evolve and meet future needs. It is therefore especially important to promote the key role farmers, pastoralists, forest dwellers and fisher-folk around the world play in the maintenance of biodiversity for food and agriculture, and of the vital contribution biodiversity makes to their livelihoods. Conserving or restoring key elements of biodiversity for food and agriculture, for example soil biodiversity, supports the related ecosystem functions. Degradation of soils can be reversed to deliver multiple benefits, including improved nutrient and water management, soil organic carbon content, natural pest and disease regulation and reduced soil erosion. This significantly increases the efficiency of the use of inputs (e.g. fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides), thereby simultaneously increasing food productivity, reducing off-farm impacts and increasing resilience to climate change.

Human Rights Scenario

Hunger is unethical/food is a human right

Hunger is the most lethal form of violence—we have an ethical obligation to care for the well-being of society itself before the individual

Boff ’12 (Leonardo, theologian and philosopher, 3/11/12, Hunger: An Ethical and Political Challenge, Agencia Latinoamerica de Informacion, http://alainet.org/active/59330&lang=pt%3Cfont%20color=, accessed: 7/2/14 GA)

Due to the economic contraction caused by the present financial crisis, the number of hungry people has jumped, according to FAO, from 860 million to 1.2 billion. This perverse fact presents an ethical and political challenge. How can we attend the vital needs of these millions and millions of persons? Historically, this has been a big challenge, because it has never been possible to fully satisfy the demand for food, be it for reasons of weather, soil fertility, or lack of social organization. Except for the first paleolithic era, when the population was small and the means of life were abundant, hunger has existed throughout all of history. Food distribution has almost always been unequal. The curse of hunger is not actually a technical problem. Techniques exist to produce with extraordinary efficacy. Food production exceeds the growth of world population, but it is distributed badly. 20% of humanity uses 80% of the means of life: 80% of humanity must make do with only 20% of those means. This is where the injustice lies. This perverse situation is caused by humanity's lack of ethical sensitivity towards the other. It is as if we had totally forgotten our ancestral origins, and the initial cooperation that enabled us to become humans. This deficit of humanity results from a type of society that favors the individual over society, that values private property more than solidarian co-participation, competition over cooperation: a society that gives more weight to values linked to masculinity (in men and women) such as rationality, power, and the use of force, than to the values linked to the feminine (also in both man and women), such as sensibility towards the processes of life, caring, and the inclination towards cooperation. As it can be deduced, the current ethic is egotistical and excluding. It is not at the service of the lives of all, and their needed care, but at the service of certain individuals or groups, to the exclusion of others. At the root of the curse of hunger lies a basic inhumanity. If we do not strengthen the ethic of solidarity, the caring by some for others, there will be no way of overcoming it. It is important to consider that the human disaster of hunger is also a political one. Politics relates to the organization of society, the exercise of power, and the common good. For several centuries in the West, and now in a globalized manner, political power has been hostage to economic power, expressed in the capitalist form of production. Profits are not democratically shared to benefit everyone, but privatized by those who hold property, power, and knowledge; only secondarily for the benefit of others. That is why political power does not serve the common good, but creates inequalities that represent true social injustice, and now, on a worldwide basis. As a result, millions and millions of persons have only left-over crumbs that are not sufficient to fulfill vital necessities. Or they simply die from diseases related to hunger, mostly innocent children. If these values are not inverted, if the economy is not ruled by politics, politics not guided by ethics, and ethics not inspired by basic solidarity, it will be impossible to solve world hunger and poor nutrition. The piercing cries of millions of hungry people continuously rise to heaven, with no efficacious reply from anywhere to silence those cries. Finally, it must be recognized that hunger also results from the lack of understanding of the role of women in agriculture. According to an evaluation by FAO, women produce a large part of what is consumed in the world: from 80% – 98% in Sub-Saharan Africa; 50% – 80% in Asia, and 30% in East and Central Europe. There will be no food security without giving the women in agriculture more power to decide the destiny of life on the Earth. Women represent 60% of humanity. By their nature, women are more linked to life and its reproduction. It is absolutely unacceptable that due to the mere fact of being women, they are denied title to the land, access to credit, and to other cultural goods. Their reproductive rights are also not recognized, and they lack access to the technical knowledge necessary to improve food production. Absent such measures, Gandhi's critique still resonates: «hunger is an insult; it degrades, dehumanizes and destroys the body and the spirit… if not the very soul; it is the most lethal form of violence that exists».

Food is a human right that we have an ethical as well as a legal obligation to provide

Kracht ’98 (Uwe, author, The Right to Adequate Food, Hunger Notes, http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/global/foodashumrgt/kracht.htm, accessed: 7/2/14 GA)

At the surface level, the differences may appear subtle, but on reflection they emerge as fundamental (Kracht, 1997). They have both an ethical and juridical dimension. Basic needs approaches define "beneficiaries" and their needs. The approach is one of dependency in the sense that beneficiaries have no active claim to ensure that their needs will be met. And there is no binding obligation or duty for anybody to meet these needs. As such, basic needs approaches have an element of charity. The fundamental difference in a human-rights approach is that it starts from the ethical position that all people are entitled to a certain standard in terms of material and spiritual well-being. This was most forcefully brought to the fore by the 1995 World Summit for Social Development, which stated: "We Heads of State and Government are committed to a political, economic, ethical and spiritual vision for social development based on human dignity, human rights, equality, respect, peace, democracy, mutual responsibility... . " To this end we will create a framework for action to:...promote universal respect for, and observance and protection of, all human rights and freedoms for all, including the right to development; promote the effective exercise of rights and the discharge of responsibility at all levels of society... (United Nations, 1995, paragraphs 25, 26; emphasis added). A human rights approach thus removes the charity dimension inherent in basic needs strategies, however valuable this may be, and emphasizes rights and responsibilities. It recognizes beneficiaries as active subjects and claim-holders and establishes duties or obligations for those against whom a claim can be held (objects or duty-bearers ) to ensure that needs are met. That moves the focus to where it should be: development by people themselves, not for them. The concept of claim-holders and duty-bearers introduces an important element of accountability. Increased accountability holds the key for improved effectiveness of action and as such offers the potential for added value flowing from the application of a rights-based approach. Implicit in the introduction of a rights dimension are also attitudinal aspects whose potential political impact should not be underestimated. A basic needs view of the problem of chronic hunger in the developing world may state that 80 percent of the population is able to meet their food needs, while a rights position would have to emphasize that the right to food continues to be neglected or violated in the case of 20 percent of the developing countries’ population. Introduction of a rights approach would also have important implications for the analysis of food and nutrition problems and for policy and program planning. Conventional analysis of causal factors of identified problems would need to be complemented by a multifaceted role/responsibility analysis of obstacles confronting the realization of the right to adequate food, from the household up to the national and international levels. This would be the basis for determining who is to be held accountable for the existence of such obstacles and who would be responsible for their removal (Jonsson, 1997). In most states, the basis for the creation of a normative, legal basis for the right to adequate food already exists, as states have already incorporated human rights in their national law at the constitutional and/or ordinary law level. Given this, a human rights framework means: Human rights are legally binding for states, not optional as in the case of recommendations from global summits and conferences. National law and policies need to be brought into agreement with what the state has agreed to internationally. This will recognize the state's limitations in providing such essential aspects of economic human rights as employment, but also recognize the need, where appropriate, to increase the state's effective concern in these areas. By using a human rights entry point, the entire human rights framework is brought into play: civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights. Human rights require active and effective remedies, not necessarily by the use of courts, but any person or group whose rights are violated should have access to appropriate remedial measures, juridical or otherwise. Rights imply accountability, both domestic and international, and thus contribute to good governance. Under international covenants, states are obliged to submit periodic reports on the human rights measures they have taken. These reports are public and accessible, now accessible even on the Internet, and can be used to hold governments accountable for non-compliance with their obligations.

Food is a recognized human right

FAO 6 (“Food Security, Policy Brief, Issue 2, June 2006, Food and Agriculture Organization, ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/ESA/policybriefs/pb_02.pdf, PDF)

More recently, the ethical and human rights dimension of food security has come into focus. The Right to Food is not a new concept, and was first recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. In 1996, the formal adoption of the Right to Adequate Food marked a milestone achievement by World Food Summit delegates. It pointed the way towards the possibility of a rights based approach to food security. Currently over 40 countries have the right to food enshrined in their constitution and FAO estimates that the right to food could be judicial in some 54 countries (McClain-Nhlapo, 2004). In 2004, a set of voluntary guidelines supporting the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security were elaborated by an Intergovernmental Working Group under the auspices of the FAO Council.

Food is a human right

UDHR ’48 (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December, 1948, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml)

Article 25.¶ (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.¶ (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Dehum I/L

Violations of human rights is dehumanization

Esmeir ‘6 (Esmeir, Samera LL.M., PhD, New York University Associate Professor teaching the intersection of legal and political thought, Middle Eastern history and colonial and post-colonial studies. "On Making Dehumanization Possible." Oct. 2006 http://urbanstudiesprogram.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/pages-from-esmeir-human.pdf)

Second, the transformation of humanity ¶ into a status conferred by the protective work ¶ of the law enables the renaming of human ¶ rights violations as practices of dehumanization. An analysis that articulates violent ¶ subjection and oppression in terms of dehumanization is more readily accepted when the ¶ declaration of a person’s humanity is a matter ¶ of (juridical) status, which is conferred and ¶ recognized, and no longer a condition gained ¶ at birth. Put differently, it is difficult to perceive of the dehumanization of an oppressed ¶ person unless we first accept the idea that humanity can be taken away or given back. In ¶ our time the law, and human rights law more ¶ specifically, claims jurisdiction over the declaration of this status.

Impact—Dehum

Dehumanization places individuals outside of the moral scope of others, justifying all forms of atrocity

Maiese ‘3 (Michelle Maiese, graduate student of Philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder and is a part of the research staff at the Conflict Research Consortium, in July 2003. http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/dehumanization)

Dehumanization is a psychological process whereby opponents view each other as less than human and thus not deserving of moral consideration. Jews in the eyes of Nazis and Tutsis in the eyes of Hutus (in the Rwandan genocide) are but two examples. Protracted conflict strains relationships and makes it difficult for parties to recognize that they are part of a shared human community. Such conditions often lead to feelings of intense hatred and alienation among conflicting parties. The more severe the conflict, the more the psychological distance between groups will widen. Eventually, this can result in moral exclusion. Those excluded are typically viewed as inferior, evil, or criminal.[1]¶ We typically think that all people have some basic human rights that should not be violated. Innocent people should not be murdered, raped, or tortured. Rather, international law suggests that they should be treated justly and fairly, with dignity and respect. They deserve to have their basic needs met, and to have some freedom to make autonomous decisions. In times of war, parties must take care to protect the lives of innocent civilians on the opposing side. Even those guilty of breaking the law should receive a fair trial, and should not be subject to any sort of cruel or unusual punishment.¶ However, for individuals viewed as outside the scope of morality and justice, "the concepts of deserving basic needs and fair treatment do not apply and can seem irrelevant."[2] Any harm that befalls such individuals seems warranted, and perhaps even morally justified. Those excluded from the scope of morality are typically perceived as psychologically distant, expendable, and deserving of treatment that would not be acceptable for those included in one's moral community. Common criteria for exclusion include ideology, skin color, and cognitive capacity. We typically dehumanize those whom we perceive as a threat to our well-being or values.[3]¶ Psychologically, it is necessary to categorize one's enemy as sub-human in order to legitimize increased violence or justify the violation of basic human rights. Moral exclusion reduces restraints against harming or exploiting certain groups of people. In severe cases, dehumanization makes the violation of generally accepted norms of behavior regarding one's fellow man seem reasonable, or even necessary.

Starvation causes aggression

Starvation induces psychological changes and can lead to uncontrollable outbreaks of aggression

Fessler 2 (Dr. D M T Department of Anthropology, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095–1553, USA, “The implications of starvation induced psychological changes for the ethical treatment of hunger strikers”, J Med Ethics 2003;29:243-247 doi:10.1136/jme.29.4.243, http://jme.bmj.com/content/29/4/243.full)

To date, the issue of starvation induced loss of competence in hunger strikers has been raised primarily with regard to late stages of the condition.66 There is reason to believe, however, that such a change can occur much earlier in the process, long before death is an imminent possibility. No systematic accounts have been published regarding psychological changes accompanying hunger striking. Nevertheless, potentially germane findings can be gleaned from reports of the consequences of drastic dietary constriction in contexts other than hunger striking. Studies of the effects of “crash” diets and “therapeutic” starvation on clinically obese patients indicate that dramatic caloric restriction can result in an impairment of competence independent of the level of bodily energetic reserves. Investigators have noted that patients, often with no previous history of psychiatric disorder, may manifest megalomaniac and persecutory delusions, auditory hallucinations, somatisation, dissociation, suicidality, and confusion.67–70 These direct effects of fasting may explain cases such as the apparent dissociation experienced by one of the Irish hunger strikers,2 and the dramatic psychotic break suffered by a Cambodian hunger striker in Australia.71 While the above observations should alert the physician to the need to consider the question of competence throughout a hunger strike, they do not necessitate any fundamental changes in current orientations toward hunger strikers; indeed, the Malta declaration’s instruction to interview hunger strikers on a daily basis provides ample guarantee that sudden and marked alterations in competence will be detected. Far more problematic, however, is the possibility that fasting may induce subtle changes in psychological functioning. In addition to overtly psychotic symptoms, some obese patients undergoing “crash” dieting and “therapeutic” starvation manifest sudden personality changes involving hyperirritability and alarming levels of aggressivity.70,72,73 Importantly, the same changes have been observed in experimental starvation of normal subjects, and are also repeatedly reported in accounts of starvation due to disaster or war.74–76 Likewise, both aggressivity and anger attacks have recently been documented in association with anorexia nervosa.77,78 In addition to barely containable hostile urges, some experimental starvation subjects also exhibited dramatic increases in a wide variety of other impulse related phenomena, including impulsive buying, kleptomania, binge eating, self mutilation, and suicidality (note that, with the exception of those who engaged in binge eating, force of will sufficed to keep experimental starvation subjects from eating despite increases in impulsivity).74 Similar patterns of impulsive behaviour occur among underweight anorexics,79–82 a finding which, on the face of it, is surprising given that this population is typically described as extremely self controlled.83–87

Food deaths outnumber war deaths

Hunger-related deaths outnumber war deaths and are inevitable unless focus is shifted from national security to food security.

Falcon and Naylor in 2005 (Walter P. and Rosamond L., Institute for International Studies, Stanford U, “Rethinking Food Security for the Twenty-First Century”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Proceedings 2005, v. 87, iss. 5, pp. 1113-27, Date accessed: 070214, EBSCOHost)

Grim as the conventional security data are, they pale in comparison to the food security situation. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2004b) estimates that 5 million children die from hunger-related causes per year. The World Health Organization and other sources put the total number of hunger-related deaths at about 8 million annually (Hunger Project). This estimate has large error bars, which arise from both definitional and empirical causes. What, for example, is the “cause” of death of a starving person, caught in a civil war, who ends up in a refugee camp, and then dies of measles? Even if the official estimates are off by 20%, several things are clear. Food insecurity deaths outnumber war deaths by a factor of at least 5 to 1. As in the case of war casualties, food-related deaths are concentrated among civilians, especially women and children. About 20,000 persons per day die globally as a result of food insecurity, the majority in Africa and Asia. That number is approximately seven times the number killed in the 9/11 attack – and it happens every day. If forty fully loaded 747s were to crash on a daily basis, would the world take notice? And if the answer is yes, why is media coverage and concern so much more ambivalent with respect to the comparable havoc caused by hunger?

Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014
2014 -> For want of a nail
2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014
2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six
2014 -> United states patent and trademark office
2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus
2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now
2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender

Download 0.57 Mb.

Share with your friends: