1nc – Short Shell

Download 0.76 Mb.
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size0.76 Mb.
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   ...   42

Link – Hegemony

Hegemony is expressed through imperialism and conquest. Like the land-rush, Nations in space will have little regard for indienous societies causing war and conflict

Gray in ’99

(Dale M. Space Policy Volume 15, Issue 3, Historical Consultant, “Space as a frontier – the role of human motivation, MDA)

The motivation of nations to expand their spheres of influence has historically been expressed in terms of imperialism, colonialism, hegemony and outright military conquest. In America in the 19th century it was most often expressed in terms of Manifest Destiny – the belief that the United States of America should extend across the continent from the Atlantic to Pacific. The movement was personified by folk heroes such a Daniel Boone, Kit Carson and Davy Crockett. However, on a larger scale it was expressed in a generationally driven agrarian and mining expansion from east to west until the Civil War and then a rebound back to the east into the interior from the Pacific in the post-War eras. In the 19th century and first half of the 20th century, the idea of a steady-state society was anathema to national prestige. Nations competed in a global land-rush with little regard for the indigenous societies. The American frontiersmen perceived the land to be empty and brushed away the native populations who could not compete with the technology, organizational structures and aggressive ideologies of the EuroAmerican society. Indeed, national ambition expressed in the expansion of physical borders continues to produce war and the threat of war.
Their project of hegemony serves to secure the American national identity by maintaining a stable division between the undesirable parts of the population

Clifford, ‘1

[Michael, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Mississippi State, Political Genealogy After Foucault: Savage Identities, p. 114]

The second facet of the nation’s integrity centers on its identity. On the international level, diplomatic-military techniques and apparatuses of security contribute toward the preservation of the nation’s identity and, to a great extent, its construction. National identity serves as a measure of integrity to the outside world; it is a complex fabrication of ideologies, doctrines, and policies disseminates through various modes of diplomacy and/or techniques of imperialism and colonialization. It is the crux of treaties and agreements, which in turn underline and reinforce the nation’s identity, vis-à-vis a relation of mutual recognition with other countries. This face which the nation projects is essential to its integrity as a political body. But it is also necessary to project this face inward, to instill or to discover a national identity in the citizenry. National integrity is a matter of unity. Among the many ways this can be achieved is through the production and propagation of discourses of nationalism, which are disseminated by means of governmental intervention in such institutions as education, at the local level where indoctrinal practices make contact with the individual. Yet any effort to instill a national identity requires a rigorous survey of the social body – the population – to determine its nature and makeup. This leads us to the third historical factor contributing to the shape of modern governments (as a disciplinary technology of power), namely, the development and expansion of the police apparatus.

Link – Space Exploration

The imperialistic ideals of space exploration are intertwined with US policies concerning colonization of the “final frontier”

Grondin 07.

David Grondin, Lecturer of Political Science @ U. Ottawa, “The US Religion of Technology in the Weaponization of Outer Space - A Case for Technological Atheism and Resisting Space War”, Paper to be presented at ISA Convention, 2007, p. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p178946_index.html

Looking at outer Space, from the viewpoint of the United States and of the analogies with the frontier experience, a notable difference in Space is that no “stranger” life yet exists and thus Space exploration does not face the same moral criticisms as would have the colonization of America if it had happened in our time: “The difference between colonialism and Space exploration, of course, is that we do not run immediately into the problem of displacing or interfering with pre-existing inhabitants of whatever Space bodies we explore next, since no such ‘alien’ life-form has yet to be established” (Lin, 2006: 283). That does not mean however that issues and attitudes of colonialism are exempt from the picture. The basic considerations to be discussed with regard to outer Space are indeed those of nationalism and of the pressures of military technology to cope with an uncertain environment. Recognizing the history of Space exploration as a way of producing outer Space as the “final space” in US security identity politics and in light of the US mythic “frontier” tradition, it is not coincidental that one American analyst would in fact bluntly asks the question that if “Space has been long called ‘the final frontier,’ but have we taken the time to consider what our responsibilities are as ‘frontiersmen’?” (Lin, 2006: 282; my emphasis). What does that imply? It is interesting to see that for Lin, although we would indeed be led to think that the “we” employed would refer to humanity, the reference to the trope of frontiersmen calls in the American role in Space exploration and American power. And reactivating the epitomizing and mythic frontier experience, American statesmen, bureaucrats, and military leaders have traditionally relied upon a blind faith on technology, especially with respect to warfare technology to solve problems. As recalls historian Paul Boyer, “the ‘security’-driven faith in technological solutions to foreign-policy issues underlay Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, with its vision of a laser-based shield to protect the nation against foreign attack” (Boyer, 2001: 5). 
Space Exploration is inherently tied to the nationalistic state. This framework for policy creates universal rationales for human destiny through notions of human progress, colonization and space travel

Siddiqi 10 (Asif A. Siddiqi assistant professor of history at Fordham University and member of advisory board at Shahjalal University of Science and Technology. wrote Challenge to Apollo: The Soviet Union and the Space Race, 1945-1974 is widely considered to be the best English-language history of the Soviet space program in print and was identified by the Wall Street Journal as "one of the five best books" on space exploration.[2][3][4] This book was later published in paperback in two separate volumes, Sputnik and the Soviet Space Challenge and The Soviet Space Race with Apollo. Competing Technologies, National(ist) Narratives, and Universal Claims: Toward a Global History of Space Exploration, Technology and Culture, Volume 51, Number 2, April 2010, pg 425-426, DA:6/21/11, CP)
Space exploration’s link with national identity partly overlapped with its claims to a larger idea that appealed to a global, even universal, vision of humanity. Counterintuitively, these ideas emerged from ideas deeply embedded in national contexts. Roger Launius has noted that nations have historically justified space exploration by appealing to one (or a combination) of five different rationales: human destiny, geopolitics, national security, economic competitiveness, and scientific discovery.15 The latter four stem from national and nationalist requirements; the first, human destiny, appeals to the idea of survival of the species. In the American context, this universal rationale of human destiny combines older traditions of technological utopianism and an updated version of “manifest destiny.” Technological utopianism, i.e., a notion that conflates “progress” (qualified technologically) with“progress” (unqualified), has been an essential part of popular discourse since the late nineteenth century, and if the crisis of modernity and the Great War made Western Europeans less enamored of the panacea promised by technology, Americans continued to embrace more fully the idea of technological utopianism than most other societies.16 As Launius has shown, influential space activists of the past fifty years deployed rhetoric and rationale to support space exploration that simultaneously invoked romanticized notions of the American frontier—Frederick Jackson Turner’s “frontier thesis” was ubiquitous—with emphatic language that underscored that what was at stake with space exploration was not about Americans but the entire human race. Commentators as varied as Wernher von Braun, Gerard K. O’Neill, and Robert Zubrin all couched their arguments with a distinctly American spin—ingenuity, frontier, freedom— in their search to create the opportunity for global survival in the form of human colonization of the cosmos.17 Here, the American becomes the normative for space travel for the species. The situation was and is eerily similar in the Russian (and former Soviet) case. As with the United States, there is a deep strand of technological utopianism in Russian society, a cultural trait that was undeniably heightened by the Bolshevik Revolution. What was once a vision of the future for Russian intelligentsia at the turn of the century took on millenarian overtones after 1917. Beginning in the 1920s, space exploration became a powerful avatar of utopian dreaming in post-revolution Russia. The most powerful symbol of this appeal was the patriarch of Soviet cosmonautics Konstantin Tsiolkovskii, the half-deaf village schoolteacher who, before any other in the world, articulated the practical possibility of space travel in an obscure journal article in 1903. Tsiolkovskii was driven not only by a fervent belief in the power of science and technology to save the world but also by ideas deeply rooted in Russian culture, particularly the philosophy of Cosmism. Cosmism’s intellectual foundations comprised a hodgepodge of Eastern and Western philosophical traditions, theosophy, Pan-Slavism, and Russian Orthodox thinking. The outcome was a nationalist and often reactionary philosophy that, in spite of its reactionary tenets (or perhaps because of them), continues to attract the attention of many Russian nationalist intellectuals in the post-Communist era.18 The cause of Cosmism was “liberation from death,” a goal that would be achieved by human migration into space which would allow humans to reanimate the atom-like particles of all those who had already “died” in the previous hundreds of thousands of years. The eccentric late-nineteenth-century Russian philosopher Nikolai Fedorov, who articulated much of this philosophy before anyone, wrote: “[The] conquest of the Path to Space is an absolute imperative, imposed on us as a duty in preparation for the Resurrection.We must take possession of new regions of Space because there is not enough space on Earth to allow the co-existence of all the resurrected generations.”19 In present-day Russia, the philosophy of Cosmism holds deep sway among many commentators, especially those who meditate on the meaning of Russian space exploration.

1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   ...   42

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page