Developing Economies NC

I negate

The Value is Morality as prescribed by the definition of the word should by Google Dictionary
used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions. Ie. He should not have done this Appeals to systems of ethics derived by ruling classes are designed to be a system of control. The standpoint of the oppressors would prevent meaningful discussion of desire because it ignores the role that suffering plays in peoples lives. Jaggar 83
Alison M. Jaggar, professor of philosophy and women studies at University of Colorado - Boulder, Feminist Politics and Human Nature, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. 1983

Because their class position insulates them from the suffering of the oppressed, many members of the ruling class are likely to be convinced by their own ideology; either they fail to perceive the suffering of the oppressed or they believe that it is freely chosen, deserved or inevitable. They experience the current organization of society as basically satisfactory and so they accept the interpretation of reality that justifies that system of organization. They encounter little in their daily lives that conflicts with that interpretation. Oppressed groups, by contrast, suffer directly from the system that oppresses them. Sometimes the ruling ideology succeeds in duping them into partial denial of their pain or into accepting it temporarily but the pervaisveness, intensity, and relentlessness of their suffering constantly push[es] oppressed groups toward a realization that something is wrong with the prevailing social order. Their pain provides them with a motivation for finding out what is wrong , for criticizing accepted interpretations of reality and for developing new and less distorted ways of understanding the world. These new systems of conceptualization will reflect the
interests and values of the oppressed groups and so constitute a representation of reality from an alternative to the dominant standpoint.

Thus, examining ethical problems from the standpoint of the oppressed, gives not only a more objective view of reality, but one that is truly inclusive. Jagger 2 The standpoint of the oppressed is not just different from that of the ruling class; it is also epistemologically advantageous. It provides the basis for a view of reality that is more impartial than that of the ruling
class and also more comprehensive. It is more
impartial because it comes closer to representing the interests of society as a whole; whereas the standpoint of the ruling class reflects the interests only of one section of the population, the standpoint of the oppressed represents the

Moreover, whereas the condition of the oppressed groups is visible only dimly to the ruling class, the oppressed are able to see more clearly the ruled[,] as well as the rulers and the relation between them. Thus, the standpoint of the oppressed includes and is able to explain the standpoint of the ruling class.
interests of the totality in that historical period.

Prefer probability over magnitude. Rescher,

[Nicholas, Professor of Philosophy at University of Pittsburgh, Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management, Pg 50]

The "worst possible case fixation" is one of the most damaging modes of unrealism in deliberations about risk in real-life situations. Preoccupation about what might happen "if worst comes to worst" is counterproductive whenever we proceed without recognizing that, often as not, these worst possible

outcomes are wildly improbable (and sometimes do not deserve to be viewed as real possibilities at all). The crux in risk deliberations is not the issue of loss "if worst comes to worst'' but the potential acceptability of this prospect within the wider framework of the risk situation, where we may well be prepared "to
take our chances," considering the possible advantages that beckon along this route. The worst threat is certainly
something to be borne in mind and taken into account, but it is emphatically not a satisfactory index of the overall seriousness or gravity of a situation of hazard.

And prefer systemic impacts, because they have 100% probability and occur on a daily basis. This everyday structural violence is the root cause of exclusion and discrimination. Focusing constantly on low-probability predictions and link chains diverts our attention away from real world problems and allows actual violence to proliferate. Adopting my mindset is key to actually preventing harms and deaths on a daily basis and end perpetual violence.

And, focusing solely on low probability impacts leads to policy-paralysis. Makes their impacts inevitable. Rescher,
Prof. of Philosophy, Nicholas Rescher, University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy, Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management 1983

The stakes are high, the potential benefits enormous. (And so are the costs - for instance cancer research and, in particular, the multi-million dollar gamble on interferon.) But there is no turning back the clock. The processes at issue are irreversible. Only through the shrewd deployment of science and technology can we resolve the problems that science and technology themselves have brought upon us. America seems to have backed off from its traditional entrepreneurial spirit and become a risk-aversive, slow investing economy whose (real-resource) support for technological and scientific innovation has been declining for some time. In our yearning

for the risk-free society we may well create a social system that makes risk-taking innovation next to impossible. The critical thing is to have a policy that
opportunity. And so we are led back to Aaron Wildavski's thesis that flight

strikes a proper balance between malfunctions and missed opportunities - a balance whose "propriety" must be geared to a realistic appraisal of the hazards and opportunities at issue. Man is a creature condemned to live in a twilight zone of risk and

from risk is the greatest risk of all, "because a total avoidance of risks means that society will become paralyzed, depleting its resources in preventive action, and denying future generations opportunities and technologies needed

for improving the quality of life. By all means let us calculate our risks with painstaking care, and by all means let us manage them with prudent conservatism. But in life as in warfare there is truth in H. H. Frost's maxim that "every mistake in war is excusable except inactivity and refusal to take risks" (though, obviously, it is needful to discriminate between a good risk and a bad one). The

price of absolute security is absolute stultification.

Thus the criterion is minimizing structural violence.

I Contend that resource extraction benefits developing countries economy

Prioritizing resource extraction solves poverty. Thondhlana 13
~Thondhlana, Gladman, and Edwin Muchapondwa. Dependence on Environmental Resources and Implications for Household Welfare: Evidence from the Kalahari Drylands, South Africa. No. 370. 2013

environmental resources provide more subsistence in kind income than cash income to local people. Environmental income reduces income in- equalities and poverty (in terms of both poverty incidence and depth) - acting as insurance against falling deeper into poverty especially for many poorer house- holds. Environmental income acts as an important buffer against household shocks (reduces societys vulnerability) especially in and during times of change and cr isis. However, the buffering effect of environmental income particularly of the in kind contribution, derived from ecosystem goods and services, is rarely acknowledged. Yet, as our results suggest, the in kind contribution of such environmental resources is very high and meaningful which is consistent with results found by Libanda and Blignaut, (2008) in Namibias community based natural resource management areas. The food, income and fuel/energy security provided by environmental resources adds to the value thereof, and reduces peoples
Overall,

From a policy perspective, the findings generally imply that promoting and allowing resource access in the KTP can potentially contribute towards reducing poverty and livelihood insecurity for the local communities. However, resource use
vulnerability. rules in the KTP currently do not permit collection of a wide range of re- sources including fuelwood, though our results show that fuelwood is the most important source of environmental income. We believe current resource access arrangements in the KTP need to be revised (e.g. permission of collection of dead fuelwood) to balance intersecting livelihood and conservation needs. Lack of access to income from fuelwood and other resources may force local people to prioritise extraction within their immediate environment for short-term bene- fits over long-term sustainability of the environment. This may result in future pressure on KTP resources, especially given that local communities have own- ership and use rights in part of the park. Nonetheless, resource access should be designed with input from resource users to avoid potential overharvesting of environmental resources due to fears by users that they may not be allowed access again. This is particularly important given the fragility of the semi-arid Kalahari ecosystem (Mogotsi et al., 2011) that our results suggest unsustainable harvesting practices in the communally-owned resettlement farms. Immediate attention should be focussed on the communal land given the ecological linkages between parks and their surroundings.

Empirically prove. Lopez-Feldman,

Alejandro, Jorge Mora, and J. Edward Taylor. "Does natural resource extraction mitigate poverty and inequality? Evidence from rural Mexico and a Lacandona Rainforest Community." Environment and Development Economics 12.02 (2007): 251-269

Our findings highlight the importance of income from natural resource extraction in alleviating poverty and income inequality in rural Mexico. Results show that the number of poor individuals increases 4.2% and inequality increases 2.4% when natural resource income is not taken into consideration. Inequality in the distribution of natural resource income is relatively high. Nevertheless, an unequally distributed income source may favor the poor. For example, welfare transfers are usually unequally distributed (most households do not receive them), but they are directed disproportionately at poor households. This is the case for natural resource income in all of our samples. A 10% increase in income from natural resources, other things being
equal, reduces the Gini coefficient of total income inequality by 0.2% in Mexico. In the South-Southeast region and in Frontera Corozal, a 10% increase in natural resource income reduces the Gini coefficient by 0.36% and 0.11%, respectively.

Structural Violence outweighs all other imapcts. Abu-Jamal

Mumia Abu-Jamal, prominent social activist and author, quotes James Gilligan, American psychiatrist and author, director of mental health for the Massachusetts prison system, President of the International Association for Forensic Psychotherapy. ("A Quiet and Deadly Violence," Al-Ahram Online Sept 19 1998, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/400/in5.htm Accessed 7/10/13
We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging "structural' violence, of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes;

"structural violence" I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the
By society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence" by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. --(Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.)

This form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it--really? Gilligan notes: [E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and
poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. [Gilligan, p. 196] Worse still, in a thoroughly capitalist society, much of that violence became internalized, turned back on the Self, because, in a society based on the priority of wealth, those who own nothing are taught to loathe themselves, as if something is inherently wrong with themselves,

instead of the social order that promotes this self-loathing. This intense self-hatred was often manifested in familial violence as when the husband beats the wife, the wife smacks the son, and the kids fight each other. This vicious, circular, and invisible violence, unacknowledged by the corporate media, uncriticized in substandard educational systems, and un- understood by the very folks who suffer in its grips, feeds on the spectacular and more common forms of violence that the system makes damn sure -that we can
recognize and must react to it.

Poverty causes nuclear war. Caldwell,

Joseph George Caldwell, PhD (Statistics) Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology ("On Human Population, Global Nuclear War and the Survival of Planet Earth," Foundation Website 10/26/00,

global nuclear war will happen very soon, for two main reasons, alluded to above. First, human poverty and misery are increasing at an incredible rate. There are now three billion more desperately poor people on the planet than there were just forty years ago. Despite decades of industrial development, the number of wretchedly poor people continues to soar. The pressure for war mounts as the population explodes. Second, war is motivated by resource scarcity -- the desire of one group to acquire the land, water, energy, or other resources possessed by another. With each passing year, crowding and misery increase, raising the motivation for war to higher levels.
It would appear that

Also its the root cause of environmental impacts. Beckerman,

Beckerman, Wilfred, Emeritus Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, and a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. "Through Green-Colored Glasses: Environmentalism Reconsidered." publ. 1996.~ The main reason for expecting economic growth to be good for the environment, in the longer run, as well as bad for it in specific instances and particular time periods, hardly needs elaboration. It is the only possible interpretation of the evidence. A casual glance at the state of the environment in the principal towns and cities of the world shows that

the environment that matters most to human beingsnotably access to water and sanitation, housing, social infrastructure and absence of the more traditional types of air pollution such as SO2 and smokeis much better in the richer countries than in the poorer. And although the data are more fragmentary, the dispar- ity between the environments in developed and developing countries is even greater in rural areas. The reason is obvious. As people get richer their priorities change and the environ- ment moves up in the hierarchy of human needs. When their basic needs for food, water, clothing and shelter are satisfied they can begin to attach importance to other ingredients in total welfare, including, eventually, the environment. As public percep- tions and concerns move in the environmental direction, so communities will be more willing to allocate resources to this purpose. And this shift in expenditure prior- ities is easier insofar as richer countries will be more able to afford them. For example, United States
public and private expenditures on pollution abate- ment and control (PAC) represent nearly 2 per cent of GNP, which is a higher share than for any other country for which comparative data are available. And the share is still rising.6 These expenditures rose in the USA at an average annual rate of 3.2 per cent over the period 1972 1987, when total real GNP rose by 2.6 per cent.7 The only other country for which comparable data are available for any length of time is Ger- many, where, too, total private and public PAC expenditures rose (at constant prices) at an annual average rate of 3.4 per cent during the period 1975 1985, raising the share of these expenditures in GNP from 1.37 per cent to 1.52 per cent. These increases in expenditures have done more than just keep pace with the in- creasing burden that, in principle, higher levels of economic activity can impose on the environment. This is partly because the pattern of output in advanced countries has been changing in a direction that tends to impose less of a burden on the environment than was the case at earlier stages of their development. At higher levels of income industry accounts for a smaller share of GDP, whereas serviceswhich are relatively non-pollutingaccount for an increasing share. Even within industry there has tended to be a shift away from the highly polluting heavy industries, such as metallurgy and heavy engineering, towards high-tech, high value-added industries

policies to combat pollution have of course been introduced mainly in richer countries, since they have the resources to imple- ment their shift in priorities. As a resultas is shown in detail in the next three sec- tions of this chapterhigher incomes are clearly associated with improvements in the environment as far as the most important
employing large amounts of very skilled human capital and with smaller inputs of energy or raw materials.8 In addition, traditional and ubiquitous pollutants are concerned (which are, of course, those for which there are comparable statistics).

Random Notes
I didnt feel like cutting some of the cards So I just pasted the block of text and cited it. You should cut and tag those cards Probably a good idea to extend Shiller. Solves/turns environment scenarios. Goklany block of text isnt bad. Thats not bad for extension too Aryee is pretty good too- main substance of your NC.