Species Answers

8/14/2019 Species Answers

1/18

BAYLOR DEBATE INSTITUTE 08 SPECIES ANSWERS

INDEX

INDEX .....................................................................................................................................................................1

KEYSTONE THEORY WRONG ............................................................................................................................2

SPECIES LOSS TAKEOUTS .................................................................................................................................3

SPECIES LOSS TAKEOUTS .................................................................................................................................4SPECIES LOSS TAKEOUTS .................................................................................................................................5

SPECIES LOSS TAKEOUTS .................................................................................................................................6

................................................................................................................................................................................. 7SPECIES ARE REPLACED ...................................................................................................................................7

SPECIES NOT KEY TO SURVIVAL .....................................................................................................................8

GLOBAL WARMING = EXTINCTION INEVITABLE ........................................................................................9AFF NOT SOLVE FOR SPECIES LOSS .............................................................................................................10

............................................................................................................................................................................... 11

CHINA IS KEY FACTOR .....................................................................................................................................11GLOBAL COOPERATION IS KEY ....................................................................................................................12

ALTERNATE CAUSALITY .................................................................................................................................13ALTERNATE CAUSALITY POPULATION GROWTH ..................................................................................14ALTERNATE CAUSALITY POPULATION GROWTH ..................................................................................15

ALTERNATE CAUSALITY FISHING .............................................................................................................16

ALTERNATE CASUALITY OVERHUNTING ................................................................................................17

ALTERNATE CAUSALITY NON-NATIVE SPECIES ....................................................................................18

1/18


2/18


KEYSTONE THEORY WRONG

REDUNDANCY PREVENTS ECOSYSTEM COLLAPSE-KEYSTONE THEORY IS WRONG

MASER 92(Chris Maser, internationally recognized expert in forest ecology and governmental consultant, 1992,Global Imperative: Harmonizing Culture and Nature, p. 40)

Redundancy means that more than one species can perform similar functions. Its a type of

ecological insurance policy, which strengthens the ability of the system to retain the integrity of its basic

relationships. The insurance of redundancy means that the loss of a species or two is not likely to

result insuch severe functional disruptions of the ecosystem so as to cause its collapse because otherspecies can make up for the functional loss.

2/18


3/18


SPECIES LOSS TAKEOUTS

SPECIES EXTINCTION WON'T CAUSE HUMAN EXTINCTION HUMANS AND THE

ENVIRONMENT ARE ADAPTABLE THIS ANSWERS THEIR INVISIBLE THRESHOLD

ARGUMENT

DOREMUS 00(Holly, Professor of Law at UC Davis, Washington & Lee Law Review, "The Rhetoric and Reality of

Nature Protection: Toward a New Discourse," 57 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 11, Winter 2000)

In recent years, this discourse frequently has taken the form of the ecological horror story . That too is no

mystery. The ecological horror story is unquestionably an attention-getter, especially in the hands of skilled

writers [*46] like Carson and the Ehrlichs. The image of the airplane earth, its wings wobbling as rivet afterrivet is carelessly popped out, is difficult to ignore. The apocalyptic depiction of an impending crisis of

potentially dire proportions is designed to spur the political community to quick action . Furthermore, this story

suggests a goal that appeals to many nature lovers: that virtually everything must be protected. To reinforce this

suggestion, tellers of the ecological horror story often imply that the relative importance of various rivets to theecological plane cannot be determined. They offer reams of data and dozens of anecdotes demonstrating the

unexpected value of apparently useless parts of nature. The moth that saved Australia from prickly pear

invasion, the scrubby Pacific yew, and the downright unattractive leech are among the uncharismatic flora andfauna who star in these anecdotes. n211 The moral is obvious: because we cannot be sure which rivets are

holding the plane together, saving them all is the only sensible course.

Notwithstanding its attractions, the material discourse in general, and the ecological horror story in particular,are not likely to generate policies that will satisfy nature lovers. The ecological horror story implies that there is

no reason to protect nature until catastrophe looms. The Ehrlichs' rivet-popper account, for example, presents

species simply as the (fungible) hardware holding together the ecosystem. If we could be reasonably certain thata particular rivet was not needed to prevent a crash, the rivet-popper story suggests that we would lose very

little by pulling it out. Many environmentalists, though, would disagree. n212Reluctant to concede such losses, tellers of the ecological horror story highlight how close a catastrophe might

be, and how little we know about what actions might trigger one. But the apocalyptic vision is less credibletoday than it seemed in the 1970s. Although it is clear that the earth is experiencing a mass wave of extinctions,

n213 the complete elimination of life on earth seems unlikely. n214 Life is remarkably robust. Nor is human

extinction probable any time soon. Homo sapiens is adaptable to nearly any environment. Even if the world ofthe future includes far fewer species, it likely will hold people. n215

One response to this credibility problem tones the story down a bit, arguing not that humans will go extinct but

that ecological disruption will bring economies, and consequently civilizations, to their knees. n216 But this toomay be overstating the case. Most ecosystem functions are performed by multiple species. This functional

redundancy means that a high proportion of species can be lost without precipitating a collapse. n217

3/18


4/18



SPECIES LOSS WONT RISK EXTINCTION NO CREDIBLE REASON IT WILL SNOWBALL

SAGOFF 97 (Mark, Pew Scholar in Conservation and the Environment and past President of the

International Society of Environmental Ethics Do we consume too much? The Atlantic Monthly, June)

There is no credible argument, moreover, that all or even most of the species we are concerned to protect are

essential to the functioning of the ecological systems on which we depend. (If whales went extinct, for example,

the seas would not fill up with krill.) David Ehrenfeld, a biologist at Rutgers University, makes this point in

relation to the vast ecological changes we have already survived. "Even a mighty dominant like the Americanchestnut," Ehrenfeld has written, "extending over half a continent, all but disappeared without bringing the

eastern deciduous forest down with it." Ehrenfeld points out that the species most likely to be endangered are

those the biosphere is least likely to miss. "Many of these species were never common or ecologicallyinfluential; by no stretch of the imagination can we make them out to be vital cogs in the ecological machine."

ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF SPECIES ARE NEEDED YOUR CONCERNS OF EXTINCTION

ARE EXAGGERATED

Kimbrell 02 (Andrew Executive Director of the International Center for Technology Assessment and theCenter for Food Safety, The Fatal Harvest Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture, p. 83-4]

There is a second practical problem with assigning value to biological diversity. In a chapter called The

Conservation Dileema in my bookThe Arrogance of Humanism, I discuss the problem of what I callnonresources. The sad fact that few conservationists care to face is that many species, perhaps most, probably

do not have any conventional value at all, even hidden conventional value. True, we cannot be sure whichparticular species fall into this category, but it is hard to deny that a great many of them do. And unfortunately,

the species whose members are the fewest in number, the rarest, the most narrowly distributed in short, the

ones most likely to become extinct are obviously the ones least likely to be missed by the biosphere. Many ofthese species were never common or ecologically influential; by no stretch of the imagination can we make

them out to be vital cogs in the ecological machine. If the California condor disappears forever from the

California hills, it will be a tragedy. But dont expect the chaparral to die, the redwoods to wither, the SanAndreas Fault to open up, or even the California tourist industry to suffer they wont.

So it is with plants. We do not know how many species are needed to keep the planet green and healthy, but it

seems very unlikely to be anywhere near the more than quarter of a million we have now. And if we turn to theinvertebrates, the source of nearly all biological diversity, what biologist is willing to find a value conventional or ecological for all 600,000-plus species of beetles?

4/18


5/18


6/18



EVEN IF YOU WIN A RISK OF ECOSYSTEM COLLAPSE, THE TIME FRAME IS INCREDIBLY

LONG

The San Francisco Chronicle 7-26-2001 (Jane Kay, Study takes historical peek at plight of ocean

ecosystems)

The collapse of ecosystems often occur over a long period.In one example, when Aleut hunters killed the Alaskan sea otter about 2,500 years ago, the population of their

natural prey, the sea urchin, grew larger than its normal size. In turn, the urchins grazed down the kelp forests,

important habitat for a whole host of ocean life.Then, when fur traders in the 1800s hunted the otters and sea cows almost to extinction, the kelp forests

disappeared and didn't start to regenerate until the federal government protected the sea otters in the 20th

century. In California, the diversity of spiny lobsters, sheephead fish and abalone kept down the urchinnumbers.At present in Alaska, the kelp beds are declining again in areas where killer whales are preying on sea otters.

Biologists think the killer whales switched to otters for food because there are fewer seals and sea lions to eat.

6/18


7/18


SPECIES ARE REPLACED

EXTINCT SPECIES ARE REPLACED

PALMER 92 (Thomas Palmer, The Atlantic, January, 1992, p. 83)

Students of evolution have shown that species death, orextinction, is going on all the time, and that it is an essential

feature of life history. Species are adapted to their environments; as environments change, some

species find themselves in the position of islanders whose islands are washing away, and they go under. Similarly, new

islands (orenvironments) are appearing all the time, and they almost invariably produce new species.

7/18


8/18


SPECIES NOT KEY TO SURVIVAL

BIODIVERSITY ISNT KEY TO SURVIVAL

CALGARY HERALD 97 (Calgary Herald, lexis-nexus,August 30, 1997)

Ecologists have long maintained that diversity is one of nature's greatest strengths, but new research

suggests that diversity alone does not guarantee strong ecosystems. In findings that could intensify the

debate over endangered species and habitat conservation, three new studies suggest a greater abundance

of plant and animal varieties doesn't always translate to better ecological health. At least equally

important, the research found, are the types of species and how they function together. "Having a long list of

Latin names isn't always better than a shorter list of Latin names," said Stanford University biologist Peter

Vitousek, co-author of one of the studies published in the journal Science. Separate experiments in

California, Minnesota and Sweden, found that diversity often had little bearing on the performance of

ecosystems -- at least as measured by the growth and health of native plants. In fact, the communities withthe greatest biological richness were often the poorest when it came toproductivity and the cycling of

nutrients. One study compared plant life on 50 remote islands in northern Sweden that are prone to frequent

wildfires from lightning strikes. Scientist David Wardle of Landcare Research in Lincoln, New Zealand, and

colleagues at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, found that islands dominated by a fewspecies of plants recovered more quickly than nearby islands with greater biological diversity. Similar

findings were reported by University of Minnesota researchers who studied savannah grasses, and by

Stanford's Vitousek and colleague David Hooper, who concluded that functional characteristics of plant

species were more important than the number of varieties in determining how ecosystems performed.

British plant ecologist J.P. Grime, in a commentary summarizing the research, said there is as yet no"convincing evidence that species diversity and ecosystem function are consistently and causally

related." "It could be argued," he added, "that the tide is turning against the notion ofhigh biodiversityas a controller of ecosystem function and insurance against ecological collapse."

8/18


9/18


GLOBAL WARMING = EXTINCTION INEVITABLE

GLOBAL WARMING MEANS EXTINCTION IS INEVITABLE AND THE AFF WILL NEVER BE

ABLE TO SOLVE 100% FOR GLOBAL WARMING

IN THE NEWS 06 (November 11, www.inthenews.co.uk/news/news/environment/global-warming-increasing-

extinction-rates-$457987.htm)

9/18


10/18


AFF NOT SOLVE FOR SPECIES LOSS

FACTORS OF SPECIES LOSS ARE ALREADY STEADFAST IN THE STATUS QUOTHE AFF

WILL NOT SOLVE FOR THIS

AMOS 05 (jONATHON, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/sci/tech/4391835.stm, March 30)

10/18


11/18


CHINA IS KEY FACTOR

CHINA IS THE WORST ENVIRONMENTAL PERPETRATOR, AND WILL CAUSE EXTINCTION

THE PLAN DOES NOTHING TO STOP THIS MAJOR THREAT.

FRENCH 06 (Howard, New York Times, Dec. 4,

www.howardwfrench.com/archives/2006/12/04/chinaas_green_debt/)

11/18


12/18


GLOBAL COOPERATION IS KEY

GLOBAL COOPERATION IS KEY TO PREVENT SPECIES LOSS

PSRAST 06 (Physicians and Scientists for Responible application of Science and Technology, May 12,http://www.psrast.org/globecolcr.htm)

12/18


13/18


ALTERNATE CAUSALITY

ALT CAUSES MAKE SPECIES LOSS INEVITABLE

New Straits Times 01(Malaysia February 4, 2001, L/N)

Yule rates the loss of biodiversity as the number one environmental crisis. "The extinction of species

that we know and don't not know of is happening at an alarming rate, causedby pollution and thedestruction of habitats. Other crises include globalwarming, river and air pollution, destruction of

rainforests and even over population."

13/18


14/18


ALTERNATE CAUSALITY POPULATION GROWTH

ALTERNATE CAUSALITY POPULATION GROWTH CAUSES SPECIES LOSS

POPULATION REPORTS 00 (VOL XXVIII, NO. 3, FALL 2000, SERIES M - #15, SPECIAL TOPICS,WWW.INFOFORHEALTH.ORG/PR/M15/M15CHAP1.SHTML)

THE POPULATION EXPLOSION AND OTHER HUMAN ACTIVITIES WILL CAUSES SPECIES

EXTINCTION, THE AFF CAN NEVER SOLVE FOR ALL THESE REASONS

PSRAST 06 (Physicians and Scientists for Responible application of Science and Technology, May 12,http://www.psrast.org/globecolcr.htm)

14/18


15/18


ALTERNATE CAUSALITY POPULATION GROWTH

THE RAPID POPULATION GROWTH IS THE CAUSES FOR SPECIES LOSS THE AFF DOESNT

SOLVE FOR THIS

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 06

(http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/biodiversity/biodiversity.html, Jan. 4)

15/18


16/18


ALTERNATE CAUSALITY FISHING

ALT CAUSUALITY FISHING CAUSES MASS BIODIVERSITY LOSS

PSRAST 06(Physicians and Scientists for Responible application of Science and Technology, May 12,http://www.psrast.org/globecolcr.htm)

16/18


17/18


ALTERNATE CASUALITY OVERHUNTING

OVERHUNTING CAUES MASS SPECIES EXTINCTION



17/18


18/18


ALTERNATE CAUSALITY NON-NATIVE SPECIES

INVASION OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES IS FACTOR IN EXTINCTION



18/18

Species Answers

Documents

Transcript of Species Answers