Globalization has eradicated great power war, dedev reverses
Download 1.56 Mb.
|
1AR Blocks1AR – War Dedev causes massive wars—extend Hillebrand & Qing—trade and globalization enhance political transparency checking miscalculation—interdependence makes war unthinkable, but collapse causes failed states, intervention and war—prefer our ev which cites BOTH empirical research AND an algorithm which factors in levels of democracy, incomes and interdependence—their ev is by hacks Economic growth produces peace – statistics prove Ekmekci ‘14 Faruk, Assistant Professor @ Ipek University with a PhD in Political Science, Peace and Conflict Studies, Spring 2014, Vol. 21, Number 1, pp. 85-99, “Democratic vs. Capitalist Peace: A Test in the Developing World”, http://shss.nova.edu/pcs/journalsPDF/pcs_spring_2014_5_ekmekci.pdf Concluding Remarks ¶ Notwithstanding the theoretical arguments and empirical evidence which indicate two ¶ different dynamics of interstate conflict in the developing and the developed worlds, the ¶ proponents of both “democratic peace” and “capitalist peace” arguments did not take into ¶ account the distinction between developing and developed countries and tested their ¶ hypotheses within samples that included “all dyads” in different time periods. This study ¶ aimed to fill this gap by testing capitalist and democratic peace arguments within the ¶ developing world. ¶ My empirical results provided support to the “capitalist peace” argument and ¶ countered the “democratic peace” argument. Economic development was found have a ¶ negative, substantial, and statistically significant effect on the likelihood of dyadic MID in ¶ the developing world. By contrast, democracy’s effect on the likelihood of dyadic MID never ¶ achieved statistical significance even at 90% significance level. These findings were robust to ¶ different measures of conflict, democracy and economic development. Thus, within the ¶ developing world, it seems economic development leads to interstate peace, whereas ¶ democracy does not. This result suggests that, in the developing world, economic ¶ development is not just an issue of economic or humanitarian concern, but also a fundamental ¶ security issue. To achieve sustainable global peace, policies that would foster economic ¶ development in the developing world ought to be encouraged and supported.
Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4 The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more “failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s population. Economic decline triggers diversionary wars Howell ‘13 Patrick Davis, B.A. from Emory University and Masters in Political Science from the University of Georgia, “Economic Crises and the Initiation of Militarized Disputes”, https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/howell_patrick_d_201305_ma.pdf Conclusions¶ Altogether, there can be said to be a robust, positive relationship between the occurrence of economic crises and the rate of dispute initiation by states. This effect is especially strong and demonstrable when time ordering is preserved by examining how crises in the previous year affect states in their current year. These findings can also be said to have a relatively high degree of substantive import as well. As Figure 1 showed, the occurrence of each subsequent economic crisis increases the chances of a state initiating disputes by almost 3%. The nearly 20 percentage point increase in dispute initiation across the range of the lagged economic crisis variable also represents a substantial impact, especially considering the rare event nature of militarized disputes to begin with.¶ This generalizable finding can have far-reaching impact to both the study of diversionary war in academia, as well as directly for policymakers. In academe settings, there is good evidence to support the use of acute economic crises over those variables based on the slower- shifting trends of GDP or public opinion measurements. Economic crises act as an explicit trigger that can mark a leader’s shift into a losses frame and engage in riskier behavior consistent with both prospect theory and diversionary war hypotheses. Meanwhile, applying this observed effect to the real world would seem to indicate that if a state goes through an economic crisis, other states should have increased wariness in their dealings with the crisis-stricken state and/or be more prepared for the possibility of a new dispute emerging in the wake of such an event.
Perhaps the greatest value of globalization is its potential for creating a world of peace. Economic growth has been identified as one of the strongest forces that turn people away from conflict and wars among groups, tribes, and nations. Global companies strongly discourage governments from warring against countries in which they have investments. Focusing on economic growth encourages cooperation and living in relative peace (Marquardt, 2001, 2002). 1AR – Sustainability The system itself is sustainable --- Extend Matthews --- tech innovation continually changes the game and outpaces their predictions---global shift towards sustainability’s happening now, it’s effective and permanent Their ev is too old and doesn’t assume new innovation that resolves unsustainable consumption Collapse is not inevitable—their authors underestimate societal resilience, flexibility, and innovation---the existential imperative will drive growth toward ecological sustainabilityJohn H. Matthews 12, and Frederick Boltz, Center for Conservation and Government, Conservation International, June 2012, “The Shifting Boundaries of Sustainability Science: Are We Doomed Yet?,” PLOS Biology, http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001344 In this issue of PLoS Biology, Burger and colleagues make several important contributions to the discourse of sustainability science, recalling limits of human economic and population growth derived from macroecology and physical principles [1]. We agree with many of the points offered in their paper in this issue and with those in the paper by Brown and colleagues [2]. However, we also believe there is danger in a vision of sustainability that is overly deterministic and does not reflect the dynamic nature of the biosphere, its ecosystems, and economies. We are also concerned about the implications of framing sustainability in the language of physics rather than ecology. Recent policy discussions in preparation for the Rio+20 Convention emphasize the concept of “green economies.” Perhaps most cogently described by microbiologist Lynn Margulis, the term refers to any theory of economics that views human economic activity as embedded within ecosystems. Green economics is often used with or in place of the more widely used term of “sustainability” or “sustainability science.” Both terms reflect a new, evolving, and diffuse discipline—or perhaps a goal approached through many disciplines, including ecology, economics, engineering, and sociology. Given the central role of ecosystems in current paradigms for sustainable development, the science of ecology is a seemingly natural home for sustainability science. However, ecology may also present some operational limits to assessing or implementing sustainable strategies. Given how difficult it is to develop ecological experiments and test hypotheses, ecology has been described as having more in common with the earth sciences (such as geology) than other biological sciences (such as physiology or molecular biology), and much less with physical sciences such as chemistry and physics [3],[4]. Given the importance of observation and inference in ecology, making predictions about complex ecological interactions requires accepting their inherent uncertainty and thus a particular humility in drawing conclusions [5]. A reader of the Burger and colleagues paper [1], for instance, might assume that the logical endpoints for its arguments are either an imminent global economic collapse triggered by stringent natural resource scarcities or catastrophic human population decline in a forceful realignment with global carrying capacity. These are dire options, with no realistically actionable response, and a reader would be forced to either reject the initial assumptions or to despair, neither of which is a useful motivational force for positive change. Moreover, while we believe that heightened concern is warranted and that these endpoints are possible, we also believe there is evidence that they can be avoided or mitigated. Predictions made on similar first principles have been put forward repeatedly in the past (e.g., [6]–[8]), and rigidly materialist approaches to social and economic change often underestimate the flexibility and resilience of human economies and societies [9]. To date, technological advances such as increases in agricultural productivity spurred by the prospect or reality of scarce primary inputs (land, water, nutrients, energy), shifts in economic valuation, and policy-based human behavioral change, such as the actions under the Montreal Protocol to reduce tropospheric concentrations of ozone-depleting gases, have avoided or delayed our transgression of perceived thresholds in the Earth system [10],[11]. While we cannot assume that there is an equivalent to Moore's Law of semiconductor capacity for natural resource management [12] or have faith that efficiency and innovation alone will save us, we can credibly assume that the existential imperative for human adjustment and adaptation will prompt us to correct our seemingly disastrous course. As a result, we believe that sustainability itself must rest on a broader foundation, particularly if we posit that sustainability science encompasses socioeconomic development, which requires the mobilization of natural resources in new ways to sustain and improve human well-being. Here, we describe several potential gaps in sustainability science, as well as evidence for what we hope is useful optimism that emerging economic paradigms are becoming more ecologically sensitive. Not running out of resources, and environmental damage is being mitigated now Lal ’04 (Deepak, James S. Coleman Professor of International Development Studies @ UCLA, former Research Administrator at the World Bank and advisor for international agencies and governments, including the governments of India, Kenya, Korea, Sri Lanka, and Brazil, and the author of numerous books on economic development and public policy including The Poverty of Development Economics and Unintended Consequences, “IN PRAISE OF EMPIRES: GLOBALIZATION AND ORDER” pg. 152-153, jj) Even though the Greens’ changing scares have been countered by rational and scientific arguments, it has had no effect on them. For those who need the evidence which disproves the various Greens’ scares till 1993, Julian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource, provides a comprehensive compilation. More recently, Bjorn Lomberg, a Green environmentalist who sought to dish prove Simon, found to his astonishment that Simon was right. His book The Sceptical Environmentalist, a detailed and scrupulous examination of all the available evidence on the various Greens’ scares, is a tour de force which has predictably raised the hackles of the Greens. The ensuing debate has shown up the ideological motives of so many of the scientists in bed with the Greens. Lomberg found---as Simon before him did in a lifetime of arguments with the Greens---that trying to engage them in rational debate was futile. Their posi-. tion is not based on reason but on faith. It is a new secular religion.32 But all their scares are without any foundations. The world is not running out of resources. The commercial reserves of nonrenewable resources have risen markedly since 1970 (with those for oil rising by 63 percent and natural gas by 1 63 percent), and declines in their price trends, as well as in their current consumption as a proportion of reserves, all point to a growing abundance rather than scarcity of many nonrenewable natural resources. The world is not going to starve because of the growth in its population. Even with low technology the world could support one-and-a half times the 2000 world population, and over nine times that at the United Nations recom mended calorie intake per head.33 Lomberg, summarizing the evidence at the end of the millennium, writes of these scares: “We will not lose our forests; we will not run out of energy, raw materials or water. We have reduced atmospheric pollution in the cities of the developed world, and have good reason to believe that this will also be achieved in the developing world. Our oceans have not been defiled, our rivers have become cleaner and support more life. . . . Acid rain did not kill off our forests, other species are not dying as many have claimed, with half of them disappearing over the next 50 years . -the figure is likely to be about 0.7 percent. The problem of the ozone layer has been or more less solved. The current outlook on global warming does not indicate a catastrophe---rather there is good reason to believe that our energy consumption will change towards renewable energy sources before the end of the century. . . . And, finally, our chemical worries and fears of pe sticides are misplaced and counterproductive.”34. So why do the Greens persist with their crusade? The reason is that, like any religion, their beliefs are not based on reason but on faith. For those who do not profess the same faith, the time has surely come to take on these new ecological imperialists. The first point of resistance is to recognize what they are seeking to do. Bluntly, they would like to perpetuate the ancient poverty of the great Eurasian civilizations—India and China -with, as they see it, their burgeoning unwashed masses increasingly emitting noxious pollutants as they seek to make their people prosperous and achieve parity with the West. For as economic historians have emphasized, the Industrial Revolution which led to the rise of the West was based on converting the traditional. organic rural economy that used energy derived from land (whose supply was ultimately limited) into a mineral-energy-based economy that uses fos sil fuels (whose supply for all practical purposes is virtually unlimited).5 It is by burning fossil fuels that the West has gotten rich and redressed that mass structural poverty which had been the fate of its masses for millennia. The same opportunity is now available to the developing countries. But the Greens, in subserving their dubious cause of global warming, want to deny the same means for the Third World’s poor to climb out of poverty. The Industrial Revolution in England and the globalization which followed was based on two forms of capitalism, one institutional, namely that defended by Adam. Smith (because of its productivity enhancing effects, even in an organic economy), and the other physical, namely the capital stock of stored energy represented by the fossil fuels. The Greens are, of course, against both forms of capitalism the free trade advocated by Smith as well as the continued burning of fossil fuels leaving little hope for the world’s poor. Despite their protestations to the contrary, the Greens are the enemy of the world’s poor. The disengagement of the United States from the Kyoto protocol is therefore to be commended. India along with China rightly stood firm at Kyoto against any restriction of their CO2 emissions. With the recent reluctance of the Russians to ratify the Kyoto protocol, perhaps it will finally be buried, and climate change cease to be an issue for the Greens to exploit.36 Growth sustainable --- new resources always materialize and tech prevents environmental collapse --- dedev leads to giant wars Bell 12, Professor Wilson – Dickinson College, 4/24, Communism and the Environment, Is Economic Growth Ecologically Sustainable?, http://blogs.dickinson.edu/hist315-enst311-sp12/2012/04/24/is-economic-growth-ecologically-sustainable/, jj The speaker on behalf of the existence of ecologically sustainable economic growth discussed how people and humans have always been involved in a struggle against nature to survive. The success of working with the environment to grow sustainable must include an intricate balance with economic growth. He argued that the agricultural revolution is actually an example of environmentally sustainable economic growth. Humans had reached a point where the population was too high to feed everyone an feared for survival humanity. However, with an increase in technology, the problem was solved and those advances resulted in economic growth. He also stated that new technologies are helping the environment and causing economic growth. Moreover, he thought that we have found a way to grow economically and not harm the environment so we should not have to halt growth as long as we keep making technological advances to sustain the environment, like in the nonrenewable industry. In response to the comment of how economics today are flawed due to their neoclassical roots, he thought that economic ideology does not matter in the sustainable development economic model. While he agreed that we are running out of fossil fuels, but we are always finding more resources, for example the new, untouched oil reserve in Israel that was recently discovered. There are also an abundance of power industries like hydropower, wind power, solar power, etc that result in economic growth. In his conclusion, he stated that we need to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels and find a way to integrate future systems. He argued that stopping growth will cause major conflicts that will effect the lower class first and eventually lead to class warfare. Economic and sustainable growth and technology has helped lower class throughout history an actually leads to equality.
Theory (INET), a nonprofit created after the 2007-2009 crisis to promote and finance academic research in economics, Capitalism 4.0: The Birth of a New Economy in the Aftermath of Crisis, p. 19-21, bgm) Democratic capitalism is a system built for survival. It has adapted successfully to shocks of every kind, to upheavals in technology and economics, to political revolutions and world wars. Capitalism has been able to do this because, unlike communism or socialism or feudalism, it has an inner dynamic akin to a living thing. It can adapt and refine itself in response to the changing environment. And it will evolve into a new species of the same capitalist genus if that is what it takes to survive. In the panic of 2008—09, many politicians, businesses, and pundits forgot about the astonishing adaptability of the capitalist system. Predictions of global collapse were based on static views of the world that extrapolated a few months of admittedly terrifying financial chaos into the indefinite future. The self-correcting mechanisms that market economies and democratic societies have evolved over several centuries were either forgotten or assumed defunct. The language of biology has been applied to politics and economics, but rarely to the way they interact. Democratic capitalism’s equivalent of the biological survival instinct is a built-in capacity for solving social problems and meeting material needs. This capacity stems from the principle of competition, which drives both democratic politics and capitalist markets. Because market forces generally reward the creation of wealth rather than its destruction, they direct the independent efforts and ambitions of millions of individuals toward satisfying material demands, even if these demands sometimes create unwelcome by-products. Because voters generally reward politicians for making their lives better and safer, rather than worse and more dangerous, democratic competition directs political institutions toward solving rather than aggravating society’s problems, even if these solutions sometimes create new problems of their own. Political competition is slower and less decisive than market competition, so its self-stabilizing qualities play out over decades or even generations, not months or years. But regardless of the difference in timescale, capitalism and democracy have one crucial feature in common: Both are mechanisms that encourage individuals to channel their creativity, efforts, and competitive spirit into finding solutions for material and social problems. And in the long run, these mechanisms work very well. If we consider democratic capitalism as a successful problem-solving machine, the implications of this view are very relevant to the 2007-09 economic crisis, but diametrically opposed to the conventional wisdom that prevailed in its aftermath. Governments all over the world were ridiculed for trying to resolve a crisis caused by too much borrowing by borrowing even more. Alan Greenspan was accused of trying to delay an inevitable "day of reckoning” by creating ever-bigger financial bubbles. Regulators were attacked for letting half-dead, “zombie” banks stagger on instead of putting them to death. But these charges missed the point of what the democratic capitalist system is designed to achieve. In a capitalist democracy whose raison d’etre is to devise new solutions to long-standing social and material demands, a problem postponed is effectively a problem solved. To be more exact, a problem whose solution can be deferred long enough is a problem that is likely to be solved in ways that are hardly imaginable today. Once the self-healing nature of the capitalist system is recognized, the charge of “passing on our problems to our grand-children”—whether made about budget deficits by conservatives or about global warming by liberals—becomes morally unconvincing. Our grand-children will almost certainly be much richer than we are and will have more powerful technologies at their disposal. It is far from obvious, therefore, why we should make economic sacrifices on their behalf. Sounder morality, as well as economics, than the Victorians ever imagined is in the wistful refrain of the proverbially optimistic Mr. Micawber: "Something will turn up." Future tech solves all of their impacts as long as we have growth Kaletsky, ’11 (Anatole, editor-at-large of The Times of London, where he writes weekly columns on economics, politics, and international relationsand on the governing board of the New York-based Institute for New Economic Theory (INET), a nonprofit created after the 2007-2009 crisis to promote and finance academic research in economics, Capitalism 4.0: The Birth of a New Economy in the Aftermath of Crisis, p. 19-21, bgm) In a capitalist democracy whose raison d’etre is to devise new solutions to long-standing social and material demands, a problem postponed is effectively a problem solved. To be more exact, a problem whose solution can be deferred long enough is a problem that is likely to be solved in ways that are hardly imaginable today. Once the self-healing nature of the capitalist system is recognized, the charge of “passing on our problems to our grand-children”—whether made about budget deficits by conservatives or about global warming by liberals—becomes morally unconvincing. Our grand-children will almost certainly be much richer than we are and will have more powerful technologies at their disposal. It is far from obvious, therefore, why we should make economic sacrifices on their behalf. Sounder morality, as well as economics, than the Victorians ever imagined is in the wistful refrain of the proverbially optimistic Mr. Micawber: "Something will turn up." Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.56 Mb. Share with your friends:
|