Supplemental section of the file (for printing purposes, starts at p. 102)
Download 1.03 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- A2 – Anthropocentrism K
- Asteroids Education – T Fwk
A2 – Doomsaying KMust focus on extinction-level eventCambier & Mead ‘7 (Doctors Jean-Luc & Frank, Air Force Research Laboratory, On NEO Threat Mitigation, Oct. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA474424&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) The diameter threshold between the first and second classes can be set to approximately 140 m, following [1], while the threshold between second and third categories is more of the order of 1 km. It is the class-3 (“Large”) impact which is of concern here. One should not be lulled into a false sense of security by the extreme dilution of the probability distribution of very rare events5 – given the death statistics, any person living in the US can expect to live an average of 50,000 years before being killed by a lightning strike, yet most people take reasonable precautions against such an event. While impacts from smaller objects are more probable within the next few decades, we can always survive those if caught unprepared. It has been repeatedly suggested elsewhere that the effort in NEO threat mitigation should be focused on small objects (< 100 m) (e.g. [5]); while the much higher frequency of such impacts makes the threat more understandable to the general public, the argument that this would result in an active program is highly doubtful. The relatively minor consequences of such an impact inevitably force a comparison with other natural (hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions) or man-made (acts of terrorism) event categories, with a lobbying constituency behind each. Given limited resources, it would not be reasonable to expect the U.S. Congress to be more amenable to fund a program preventing an impact by a 100 m asteroid – likely to land in some unpopulated area – as opposed to hurricane or earthquake preparation. On the other hand, there is no comparison to the sheer magnitude of an extinction-class impact. The very low probability of such an event makes it equally difficult for leaders, even with extraordinary vision, to support a mitigation program against this class of threats; nevertheless, it would be prudent to do so, and focusing on minor threats may not enable us to prevent the disaster that really counts… A2 – Anthropocentrism KWe should act to prevent a NEO strikeMorris 2k (Julian, Director of the Environment and Technology Programme at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, Rethinking risk and the precautionary principle pg 108) Before considering the implications of applying the precautionary principle to the NEO threat, it is first necessary to ask whether the precautionary principle should be applied to this class of threat at all. From an ecocentric perspective, it might be argued that interfering in the course of nature is wrong. NEOs are no less part of the natural order than are volcanoes and earthquakes, so following ecocentric reasoning nothing should be done about them. However, this objection is convincing only if we are willing from the start to read human being out of nature entirely, that is, if the precautionary principle is not just anti-antropocentric but overtly misanthropic. Other species are, within their capacities, expected to act in ways that preserve themselves and foster the conditions necessary for their existence. Furthermore, if it were possible to forestall an NEO collision, it would not only be humankind that would benefit, but the order of nature on Earth as we presently know it as a whole. Inasmuch as the precautionary principle favours the status quo above anything else, it would seem to be incompatible for the ecocentric argument against actions to avert NEO collisions (O’Riordan and Cameron, 1994b, p.16). Asteroids Education – T & FwkKey to solveThis topic is a unique opportunity for us to educate one another about asteroids. This is an advantage to our interpretation with science education and extinction-level impacts that turn and outweigh the negative’s fairness and education voters.Hartwell ‘7 (William, fellow at Desert Research Institute, Division of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, Ch. 3: The Sky on the Ground: Celestial Objects and Events in Archaeology and Popular Culture, in Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society: An Interdisciplinary Approach, SpringLink) Although cinematic film can be an excellent tool in raising public awareness, the task of public education on the true scientific nature of the NEO issue remains an extremely important one, albeit one that perhaps should be undertaken as a part of policy implementation rather than as a prerequisite. There are several obstacles that will need to be overcome with regards to educating the public about the near-Earth object issue. The first has to do with the general state of the public’s science education, which is necessarily tied to its perception of science and scientists. The general level of science education of members of the public is quite low (speaking from a U.S.-centric position). Even students who take basic core science classes at the university level often complete those classes without a complete understanding of how the process of scientific inquiry works (Mole 2004). Instead, Mole explains, they are often introduced to classes concerning the interaction of science and society that concentrate on real and imagined deficiencies of science, while neglecting important topics such as the history of science, the role of the peer review process, and discussions on why individual scientists may have widely divergent views on a particular subject. This last point is especially germane when dealing with members of the public who have no science background whatsoever. When addressing an issue such as near- Earth objects, the public can become easily confused by lack of consensus among scientists. The diverse range of views regarding the likelihood of catastrophic impact over a given time period and its resultant effects (e.g. Bryant 2001; Chapman 2004; Chapman and Morrison 2003; Keller 1997; Marsden 2004; Masse, Chap. 2 of this volume; Svetsov 2003; Yabushita 1997) particularly when filtered through various popular science media (e.g. Anonymous 1998; Applegate 1998; Dalton 2003; Hecht 2002; Ravilious 2002) can end with the layperson throwing up his or her hands in exasperation and walking away from the issue altogether. Peer-review, disagreement, and discourse are, after all, part of the process of conducting science, but many in the general public are unaware of this. Finally, cinematic film may do wonders to increase public awareness of important scientific issues, but public perception of science and scientists is, at least in part, shaped by their portrayals in popular cinematic film, and video and TV programs. Such portrayals are often less than flattering, with the “mad” (e.g. Frankenstein) or bumbling scientist stereotype perpetuated and the idea that science itself is responsible for the world’s ills (Haste 1997; Steinmuller 2003). 3.5 Conclusions In industrial societies, the celestial constants and some phenomena have been relegated to the realm of scientific curiosity. However, unusual transient events can trigger significant, albeit often brief, resurgences in public interest. It is clear that public understanding of and interest in the near-Earth object issue has undergone a transformation over the last decade that was initiated by the impact of comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 on Jupiter. This real-world event and the resultant popular cultural cinematic productions helped focus the public on the actual threat that near-Earth objects present, and also greatly increased public awareness and potential support for development and implementation of public policy on the issue. When targets-of-opportunity arise, such as feature films addressing topics of serious scientific concern, scientists should take a proactive role in initiating and participating in frank discussions that engage the public on relevant issues depicted in mass popular culture, offering correction and explanation when appropriate, and availing themselves of the opportunity to educate about the process of science at the same time. Science fiction film can also present excellent opportunities to teach students about real science and the process of critical thinking (Dubeck et al. 1988). As an additional measure, promoting good general science education at all educational levels will ensures that the future public is better equipped to independently evaluate where their support should be focused on such issues. The asteroids debate is an important one—it serves a key educational function that is a prerequisite for us to demand that the government take appropriate action.Hermelin ‘7 (Michael, prof at EAFIT Universidad, Medellin, Colombia, Ch. 30: Communicating Impact Risk to the Public, in Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society: An Interdisciplinary Approach, SpringLink) In fact, moviemakers have already discovered the bounty which sensationalism can draw from NEO impacts and have produced at least two memorable films, Armageddon and Deep Impact, which grossly falsify many of the real aspects of the problem. Documents such as the one prepared by the Discovery Channel are of course much more recommendable, but are of relatively limited reach. The challenge for ICSU is the immediate preparation of a worldwide program designed to give people an objective vision about what NEO impacts really mean for humanity. It does not seem convenient to wait until a hazardous one appears to start acting. If this idea is acceptable, ICSU should become the “official voice” and assume responsibilities implied by this role: this would include the fact that information to be broadcast must be “understandable, credible, solicit the proper response and not confuse the public”. Precautions must be taken to ensure that this information can reach marginal and remote populations; this is of great importance in underdeveloped countries (Landis 2003). Finally, once the program has started, communication should be continuous in order to warrant its effectiveness and also the confidence of those who receive the information (Gross 2003). Considering that the challenge is more an education goal than a merely informative one, the following scheme is proposed; it must be clearly stated that what is being considered in the actual context is an educational approach, very different from the diffusion of a “before the event” notice implying well-defined measures to be taken by authorities and populace. The expected results would be the motivation on the part of the natural authorities to act in order to implement better comprehension of the NEO problem by their countries’ populations. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.03 Mb. Share with your friends:
|