Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[5]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[5]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,67 +1,0 @@
1		-=Virilio Aff—Bronx=
2		-
3		-
4		-==1AC==
5		-
6		-===1AC—Default===
7		-
8		-
9		-====The invention of nuclear power was the invention of the meltdown—nuclear accidents have caused massive amounts of death and destruction, yet they can never be avoided so long as nuclear power is produced====
10		-McCluskey 13
11		-Jim McCluskey (author of "The Nuclear Threat"). "Ten Urgent Reasons to Reject Nuclear Power Now." Truth-out. February 17^^th^^, 2013. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14461-ten-urgent-reasons-to-reject-nuclear-power-now
12		-
13		-1. Nuclear Power Stations are Prohibitively Dangerous. There have now been four grave nuclear reactor accidents: Windscale in Britain in 1957 (the one that is never mentioned), Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979, Chernobyl in the Soviet Union in 1986 and now Fukushima. Each accident was unique, and each was supposed to have been impossible. A recent book, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, concludes that, based on records now available, some 985,000 people died between 1986 and 2004, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. Alice Slater, New York representative of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, comments: "The tragic news uncovered by comprehensive new research that almost one million people died in the toxic aftermath of Chernobyl should be a wake-up call to people all over the world to petition their governments to put a halt to the current industry-driven 'nuclear renaissance.' Aided by a corrupt IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), the world has been subjected to a massive coverup and deception about the true damages caused by Chernobyl." At Fukushima we have the worst industrial disaster ever. Three simultaneous ongoing complete meltdowns have proven impossible to stop or contain since they started almost two years ago. These meltdowns are still pouring radiation pollution across the Japanese landscape. International experts (e.g. Charles Perrow in Normal Accidents) agree that there will continue to be disastrous failures at nuclear power stations, and that this cannot be avoided. As Edward Teller, the great nuclear physicist, said, "If you ~~try to~~ construct something foolproof, there will always be a fool greater than the proof."
14		-
15		-
16		-====Progress and disaster are two sides of the same coin—accidents are inherent to the technological speed which underlies nuclear power plants====
17		-Hauer 15
18		-Thomas Hauer (VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava). "Speed, Uncertainty, and Origin of Disaster." Philosophy Study, June 2015, Vol. 5, No. 6, 282-286. http://www.davidpublishing.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/562f2ca949075.pdf
19		-**edited for ableist language
20		-
21		-The gradual spread of catastrophic events considerably affects the reality of the moment and it causes anxiety and anguish for generations to come. Unexpected and catastrophic events, all accidents, from the most banal to the most tragic, from natural catastrophes to industrial and scientific disasters, make people powerless. As Aristotle said, the accident reveals the substance. If this statement is true, then invention of the substance is equally invention of the accident. The air crash is consequently the futurist invention of the supersonic airliner, just as the Chernobyl meltdown is the invention of the nuclear power station. When we take a look at recent history, the 20th century was the century of great exploits; some of the most significant ones are for example the moon landing, great discoveries in physics and chemistry, or computer science and genetics. However, the 21th century, in turn, reaps the harvest of this hidden production constituted by different disasters. The 20th century did in fact swamp us with mass-producted accidents one after the other. According to Valèry’s postulate, If consciousness only survives now as awareness of accidents, and if nothing functions except outside consciousness, the loss of consciousness about accidents as well as major disasters would not only amount to unconsciousness but to madness—the madness of deliberate blindness to ~~ignorance of~~ the fatal consequences of our actions and our inventions. (Virilio 2007, 6) In contrast to the natural accident, the artificial accident results from the innovation of a motor or of some substantial material. If the substance is absolute and essential to science and if the accident is relative and contingent, we can identify the substance at the beginning of specific fields of knowledge and the accident at the end of the philosophical intuition. "Creation or collapse, the accident is an unconscious oeuvre, an invention in the sense of uncovering what was hidden, just waiting to happen" (Virilio 2007, 9). Accident is inseparable from the speed (Armitage 2000, 38). Virtual speed of unexpected and catastrophic events should be studied instead of the actual speed of objects. As we try to protect ourselves from excess in real speed by means of breaks and automated safety systems, we have to try to protect ourselves from excess in virtual speed, from what unexpectedly happens to substance—meaning to what lies beneath engineer’s awareness as producer. In Aristotle’s Physics, it is indeed the passage of time, in other words, the speed which destroys and achieves the ruin of all things, and every substance becomes a victim of the accident in the traffic circulation of time. The production of accidents is connected with the sudden militarization of the sciences, most notably, the fatal invention of weapons of mass destruction and a thermonuclear bomb capable of extinguishing all life on the planet. The visible speed of the substance (that of the means of transport, of computing, of information) is only the tip of the iceberg of the invisible speed of the accident. The speed, with which accidents surge up, plunges humankind into mourning and powerlessness. We have to try as fast as possible to define the flagrant nature of disasters peculiar to new technologies. According to Hannah Arendt: "Progress and disaster are two sides of the same coin" (Virilio 2007, 15). Lately, the accident argument has become one of the mass media’s pet themes, the confusion between sabotage and breakdown on the one hand and between the suicide bombing mission and the industrial or other accident on the other hand. Since the start of the 20th century up to the present day, we can see the increase in the number of catastrophes. Artificial accidents have outstripped natural accidents. Suddenly, an accident is no longer unexpected event. It turns into a rumour. One of the cases of catastrophic events is one which emerges in terrorist dimension. There is the confusion between the genuine accident occurring unexpectedly to a substance and the strategy of a malicious act. Whence the gravity of the New York attack, which calls into question not only the United States’s status as a sanctuary, but also the boom in the major airlines and the liberalization of tourist flows, to say nothing of the catastrophic impact of the collapse of the Twin Towers on the comprehensive insurance market. (Virilio 2007, 16)
22		-
23		-
24		-====The Aristotelian notion that substance can be separated from its accidental qualities is bankrupt at its core—every technology produces accidents, which are necessitated by the rational imperatives of progress—we must expose the accident and challenge the teleology at the heart of technological imperatives====
25		-Crogan 99
26		-Patrick Crogan. "The Tendency, the Accident, and the Untimely: Paul Virilio’s Engagement with the Future," Paul Virilio: From Modernism to Hypermodernism and Beyond, ed. John Armitage. Article from Theory, Culture and Society, 1999. Google Books, pp. 171-173.
27		-
28		-Virilio recasts the relation between what is considered essential and what peripheral to technological ‘advance’ by punning on the buried relationship between the classical, philosophical notion of accident as an ‘inessential’ attribute or quality of a thing and the everyday sense of the term accident as an unexpected mishap. In doing so Virilio proposes not just to remove the censorship of positivism by acknowledging the ‘specific accident’ of a given technology. Instead he calls for a rethinking of technological development so as to address the substance/accident ‘inversion’ through which the accident is not only a regrettable contingency but becomes something ‘every technology produces, provokes, programs’. This is why war and military developments are so crucial for Virilio. ‘What are war machines?’, Virilio asks in an interview with Chris Dercon: ‘They are machines in reverse—they produce accidents’ (Dercon, 1986:36). This explains to a significant extent Virilio’s focus on theorizing war as a central aspect of modernity. War not only provides a major impetus for the development of new technologies of speed—it is, he says in the same text, the ‘laboratory of modernity’ (1986:36). The war machine, in its reversal of the commonsense notion that machinery is essentially productive, promotes this ‘negative side of technology’ which Virilio argues is a central aspect of all technologies. This negative side, he says in another interview (with Florian Rotzer), is always there, doubling the side of ‘productive reason’ (Rotzer, 1995: 100). In privileging the accident over the substance Virilio sees himself as a theorist of this hidden negativity, correcting, he says, the Western metaphysical tradition’s denial of ‘military intelligence’: ‘When Aristotle says there is no science of the accidental, he puts into motion the process of denying the negative’ (1995: 100). Virilio provides further insight into his privileging of the accident in ‘La Musee de l’accident’ (in Virilio, 1996). Taking the occasion of the opening of a museum of technology at the Parc de la Villette in Paris, he repeats his assertion of the ‘symmetry between the substance and the accident’ and speculates on the need for and the possible design of a ‘museum of accidents’ to counter the positivism of conventional museological practices (1996: 110). Describing the approach of such a museum as ‘postpositivist’, he argues that its goal—to ‘expose the accident’—would be to ‘expose the unlikely, the unusual yet inevitable’ (1996: 112). This would serve to expose to ‘us’ ‘that to which we are habitually exposed’ as a form of protection from it. To achieve this ‘preventative perspective’ the museum would need to comprehend the accident as: "…no longer identifiable simply with its deadly consequences, its actual results: ruins and scattered debris, but also with a dynamic and energetic process, a kinetic and cinematic sequence not bound to the relics of all kinds of destroyed objects and rubble." (1996: 114) This ‘kinetic and cinematic sequence’ is the inverse of the positivist conception of the dynamic process of historical progress. It is the double of progress in that it borrows the ‘progressive’ assumptions of linear temporality and teleological inevitability, as well as the notion that a visible image of the movement of progress is discernible across the passage of time. The revealing of this sequence that Virilio identifies with the accident would challenge the habitual understanding of the connection between historical and technical developments by ‘showing the advent of something in what seems to happen unexpectedly’ (1996: 115). What Virilio’s ‘meta-museography’ of the imaginary museum of accidents to is a characterization, in a typically rapid, evocative form, of his theoretical project. The kinetic sequence of the unexpected that doubles the narrative of historical/technological progress is another description, I would suggest, of the tendency. As seen in the relation between the ‘technical surprise’ of the First World War and the logistical tendency toward pure war, the accident plays a central role in the ‘vector-ization’ of the tendential sequence. Indeed, it is the ‘substance’ of the tendency’s change of level, the motor of its unexpected detouring of the rational course of progress. Virilio’s writing attempts to sketch out the tendency through a description of the accidents of technological (post)modernity. These descriptions are in effect critical reinscriptions of these adventitious yet somehow constitutive mishaps of techno-science. The tendency is, therefore, accidental—it arises and gains momentum in and through these unforeseen detours of techno-scientific ‘advances’ in civilization. But these unexpected events are, paradoxically, ‘substantial’; they link up to form the dynamic sequence that perturbs the march of forward progress by doubling and disfiguring its teleology. The tendency is made up of these enigmatic accidents that Virilio says ‘every technology produces, provokes, programs’.
29		-
30		-====Politics and the accident have become inseparable—the will to amass techno-scientific knowledge is self-defeating because it produces its own destruction====
31		-Hauer 15
32		-Thomas Hauer (VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava). "Speed, Uncertainty, and Origin of Disaster." Philosophy Study, June 2015, Vol. 5, No. 6, 282-286. http://www.davidpublishing.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/562f2ca949075.pdf
33		-
34		-This example is just one among many. People confronted by this chain of media events, each one more catastrophic than the last, should ask question about the dramatization that has been taking place since the beginning of the 21th century. "With television, which allows hundreds of millions of people to see the same event at the same moment in time, we are finally living through the same kind of dramatic performance as at the theatre in days not long gone" (Virilio 2007, 19-20). The next example is from the field of politics. Nowadays, there is no difference between politics and show business anymore. It is the performance that persuades people that the candidate is sincere. If inventing the substance means indirectly inventing the accident, then, the more powerful and high-performance the invention is, the more dramatic the accident is. This statement was evidently confirmed for people throughout the 20th century with the invention of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons that are ultimately unusable. The accident presents in this case the panicstoking uselessness of this type of weaponry. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote in his book, The Birth of Tragedy: "A culture built on science must necessarily perish when it starts to become illogical, that is, to recoil before its own consequences. Our Art reflects this general crisis" (Virilio 2007, 32). The sudden militarization of science is considered to be necessary to the presumed victory in war. Human power then transforms itself into a cause of ruin, toppling the nations into destruction. This progress in knowledge, from progress in genetics and computer science to the atomic progress, of which Chernobyl is in the wake of Hiroshima, has revealed to us the atrocious truth. This statement perfectly sums up the paradox of the 20th century: "Today, at the very dawn of the 21th century, when much-vaunted globalization is nothing if not the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge—in other words, of the so-called information revolution—the exterminator takes over from the predator, just as terrorism takes over from the orifinal capitalism" (Virilio 2007, 33). Extermination becomes the illogical outcome of accumulation. In fact, we can say that this is the accident in knowledge that now rounds off the accident in substances deriving from technoscientific research. If matter has three dimensions, mass, energy, and information, then, after the series of accidents in materials and energy over the past century, the accident is upon us. We should ask ourselves these three questions: Should science reassure? On the contrary, should science frighten? Is science inhuman? Scientific and technical knowledge has many outcomes—radioactive fallout from Chernobyl, genetically modified organisms, reproductive human cloning following on from animal cloning, and this list goes on. "The accident in knowledge is impressive not so much in terms of the number of victims but in the very nature of the risk run" (Virilio 2007, 36). Nowadays, there are many threats to human life such as medically assisted procreation, the right to assisted death and euthanasia, not to mention biological weapons.
35		-
36		-
37		-====As technology and politics are inseparable, deliberative democracy has become undermined by technological speed—the public is largely excluded from important decisions about technology—this makes totalitarianism and the dehumanization of billions inevitable ====
38		-Adams 3
39		-Jason Adams (B.A., Evergreen State College). "Popular Defense in the Empire of Speed: Paul Virilio and the Phenomenology of the Political Body." Thesis submitted for a Masters in Political Science, Simon Fraser University. 2003.
40		-
41		-Just as we have seen with his critique of the epistemology of science, so too does Virilio reject the ideology of objectivity in regard to technology, pointing out that far from being the product of equal input from all sectors of society, much less without value altogether, it too is always developed for someone and for some purpose, namely that of the military, the media, the state and other centers of power. It is through the convergence of these critiques that he develops his theory of technocracy as the totalitarian replacement of participatory politics in our time, which he says has come about because the instrumentalism that was born with what we call ‘technology’ has exceeded the machinic bounds of the term to encompass ever greater sectors of society, with the result that today it necessarily includes any standardized complex of procedures that transform nature, animals or humans into a means to an end, such that reflective and deliberatory decision-making are replaced, as seen for example in the way in which both the machinic technology of the nuclear bomb and the economic technology of neoliberalism involve the transformation of billions of living beings into either hostages or consumers rather than political actors in their own right. Thus, politics and technology can no longer be separated in a time when the latter forms the very framework within which the former takes place, to such an extent in fact, that deliberation is often subsumed by technique altogether; as John Street has argued, this occurs because "technology encompasses not just nuclear power stations and computers. It extends, for example, to hedgerows, trees and walls. The row of trees outside the American Embassy in London was not planted out of commitment to natural beauty, but to break up student demonstrations, just as the Paris streets were designed to frustrate revolutionary mobs". In this example we get a glimpse of why Virilio describes what are generally thought of as liberal ‘democracies’ as technocracies instead, since almost all of the most important decisions in regard to overall design are made not by the people directly affected by them, much less by their elected representatives in government, but rather by technicians who not only exclude the public from the decision of whether or not a particular form of technology should be introduced, but even design them from the state so as to preclude the very possibility from ever occurring at all. This argument has only become more relevant with the passing of time, as seen in phenomena recently whereby elected officials have taken to passionately defending the autonomy of the very technicians whom they have lost the ability to control, such as Clinton’s dismissive remark during the 1999 WTO Ministerial in Seattle that those concerned about the dangers of genetically modified foods had merely lost faith in the representative nature of liberal democracy; as he proclaimed at the time, "I say to the people of the world: we eat this food too and we eat more of it than you do".
42		-
43		-
44		-====Catastrophes like global warming are a result of techno-scientific progress—technology has fundamentally altered our perception of the world, making the aff an epistemic prerequisite====
45		-Hauer 15
46		-Thomas Hauer (VŠB-Technical University of Ostrava). "Speed, Uncertainty, and Origin of Disaster." Philosophy Study, June 2015, Vol. 5, No. 6, 282-286. http://www.davidpublishing.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/562f2ca949075.pdf
47		-
48		-There are many who claim that global warming is catastrophic for the climate. Meteorology has become a very lucrative business for people. However, climatologists do not have a clue what is going to happen because the climate is unpredictable since there is no forecast model that works. There are also other sciences dealing with the issue of climate. One of them is geo-engineering trying to counteract global warming artificially, which involves extremist practices that aim to innovate in the future a universal air conditioning system able to cool down the planet. But for some other climatologists, it is hard to evaluate consequences of such largescale manipulation and they are pessimistic about the effectiveness of such measures. This issue of global warming is just one example of consequence among many other consequences resulting from the progress in science. The 20th century is considered to be the century when people have entered a period of consequences and they have to find effective solutions to save population. The progress in science and technology has resulted in acceleration of time and of everything around us. Nowadays, tendency of adolescents is to opt for chat rooms to maintain contact with others and to form relationships over the internet. The firms such as Google or Yahoo have made this kind of instant messaging service available to people. This proximity without promiscuity has become a market where proximity stops meaning "here" and turns it into the meaning "over there." Objectivity is transformed into the tele-audiovisual objectivity and face-to-face contact is via an interface, through the view of screens. Warning for people is the loss of sight. The gradual narrowing of the visual field to the frame of the screen can result in eye disease that reduces our lateral vision and that goes by the name of glaucoma. This disease is irreversible and most often painless; it causes a number of optical data to disappear one by one and it can even develop into total blindness. This disease achieves a sort of furtive iconoclasm not of pictorial imagery any more, but of objective ocular imagery and it thereby affects our mental imagery and so our subjectivity—to the instrumental, teleobjective imagery. According to Maurice Merleau-Ponty, After all, the world is around me, not in front of me, I inhabit it. To suppress, as does the shutter of the screen of a so aptly named terminal, not only lateral vision, but also the countryside, the land around, is to deprive all customary reality of relief and to experience a disastrous reversibility of dimensions, in particular of the depth of perspective. There is no distance any more, we are so close to things, they no longer concern us at all. (Virilio 2010, 79) Our world has become a foreclosed world by the temporal compression of a realistic acceleration. This sudden reversal in our relationship to the world around us, a result of the acceleration of a real time that dominates, demands training, formation, and sort of tele-scopic education. This is required from the moment the child comes into the world, now accompanied not so much by his parents as by the screen relations that will surround him as an adolescent and as a grown-up in days to come. In 2006, the very first television channel for babies saw the light of day in Europe. Offering cartoons, nursery rhymes, games, and documentaries, this channel pushing desensitization to and embrace of the acceleration of reality trains the baby in the optically correct perception that will evolve into the aesthetics of his years as a grownup. It thereby promotes toddlers’ addiction to the small screen, at the same time as it claims to be protecting those toddlers by drawing the parents’ attention to the risks of their progeniture’s habituation to the specialized channel’s hypnotic effects. (Virilio 2010, 80) This is happening today even though parents are strongly advised not to leave their very young children in front of the TV. Camille Flammarion may be considered the prophet of this society of accelerating reality which was to lead to the on-line society of instantaneous telecommunications in the 20th century. As the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, "Time is the cycle of light" (Virilio 2010, 87). However, this cyclical time of seasons and days is now doubled by the real time of an instantaneity that is the cycle of the speed of light waves which convey the information of image and sound. The phrase from Joseph Losey’s film The Damned, accurately illustrates contemporary world: "It is too late to have a private life" (Virilio 2010, 89). We live in the age of general interactivity where electronic cooperation and collective intelligence could turn humanity as a social corpus not into single people, but into a single mass media corpus.
49		-
50		-
51		-====I affirm that countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.====
52		-
53		-
54		-====Demanding a prohibition of nuclear power challenges the dominance of authoritarian technologies—it’s not that science and tech are always evil, but that they should serve the interests of the public—vote aff to endorse the 1AC’s politicization of speed====
55		-Adams 3
56		-Jason Adams (B.A., Evergreen State College). "Popular Defense in the Empire of Speed: Paul Virilio and the Phenomenology of the Political Body." Thesis submitted for a Masters in Political Science, Simon Fraser University. 2003.
57		-
58		-
59		-Thus we can see that for Virilio for as long as technology has been allowed to become ever more autonomous, the deliberative basis on which politics rests has been undermined since it has exempted what is arguably the most important element of public administration from consideration. In order for the political to prevail over the technical then, the metadesign of society that results from the introduction of technique must be subjected to open and sustained debate and decision-making processes which directly involve the populations affected by them. If this were to take place, he argues, the likely result would be the scaling back of large-scale authoritarian technologies such as nuclear power and the emergence of small-scale democratic technologies such as wind power, which is why it should not be taken from his pessimism about the present that he wants to turn back the clock to ‘Year Zero’, but rather that he would prefer to wait and see what might appear within the context of a society in which science and technology are transformed so as to serve the interest of the public rather than that of the elites who go to such great lengths to protect their autonomy. It is for this reason that it is rather difficult to place him within a particular tradition of technological thought since he is both negative about the short term future of technology and positive about its long term potentiality at one and the same time. While on the one hand he agrees with Ellul that the instrumental logic of technology as we know it today has become so pervasive that ours is more appropriately described as a ‘technological society’ than as a capitalist society, since even non-capitalist societies such as the Soviet Union held that ‘communism is socialism plus electricity’ and were thus in many way of a piece with our own, on the other hand he also takes from Heidegger that "we must take hold of the riddle of technology and lay it on the table as the ancient philosophers and scientists put the riddle of Nature out in the open…we must politicize speed, whether it be the metabolic speed (the speed of the living being, of reflexes) or technological speed. We must politicize speed, because we are both: we are moved, and we move. To drive is also to be driven." In order to accomplish this, his suggestion is that citizens should immediately demand meetings with the engineers and technicians in order to really discuss both the positive and the negative implications of what is being brought into existence today, just as the developers of the railway system throughout Europe got together in Bruseels in 1888 and came up with the ‘block system’ to prevent accidents as a result. What was unique in that instance, and what is unheard of today, as Virilio notes, is that "the starting point of the discussion in Brussels was on the negative, on what did not function. Contact switches and signals were devised, and these became the basis of a very sophisticated form of data management. But why are there no conferences nowadays on the damaging consequences of unemployment? On the wrong turns taken by urbanism? On the obverse side of technical progress?"
60		-
61		-
62		-====The 1AC is a form of anti-futurology which raises key questions about the accidents that result from progress—the role of the ballot is to engage in an anti-futurist analysis of technological progress====
63		-Crogan 99
64		-Patrick Crogan. "The Tendency, the Accident, and the Untimely: Paul Virilio’s Engagement with the Future," Paul Virilio: From Modernism to Hypermodernism and Beyond, ed. John Armitage. Article from Theory, Culture and Society, 1999. Google Books, pp. 171-173.
65		-
66		-
67		-The Untimely We are now in a position to articulate Virilio’s project in terms of the aporia of speed confronting critical work discussed in the first section of this article. It was stated there that the aporia of speed concerned the contradictory necessities for criticism in the era of techno-science to move quickly, in order to account for the rapidly transforming present, over against the need for careful consideration of the continuities between past and present. Finding the ‘right speed’ for critical interpretation is an aporetic task which must nevertheless be attempted, for it is the opportunity that presents itself to criticism even as the critical discourses of the humanities find themselves in crisis in the face of the techno-scientific transformation of culture. To recall, this task involves rethinking the relations between what Derrida calls ‘the invention that finds what was already there and the one that produces new mechanisms or new spaces’ (1984: 21). This is what Virilio’s tendential analyses attempt. They represent a profound meditation on the relation between traditional historical modes of interpretation and the new event that challenges the coherence of such historical interpretation. As we have seen, the tendency appears as a double of the discourse of progress in its mirroring of the structure of linear temporal development toward a future endpoint. For instance, the pure war tendency would culminate in the total merging of the military and non-military spheres and the complete dominance of logistics over all other considerations (economic, social, political, ethical) in the ordering of the social. In such a situation there would be no possibility of a criticality outside of logistical imperatives. In doubling the discourse of progress, his rapid analyses retain a link to the historical form of criticality. Virilio reaffirms the traditional mode of historical analysis even as he attempts to counter the more or less explicit positivism that pervades conventional accounts of techno-science. His efforts to bring the negative side of technological advance into focus by exposing the accidents that have contributed to the generally unnoticed, dynamic tendencies that shadow and transform ‘progress’ are, in this sense, efforts toward a corrective form of anti-futurology. This anti-futurology avoids the retroactive legitimation of techno-scientific developments and the increasingly tenuous prediction of the inevitable advance of (Western) world civilization. It raises crucial questions about the nature of techno-scientific development by proposing a perverted version of the dominant teleological narratives told about it.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-10-15 18:54:18.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Nathan Johnston

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Valley SC

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-6

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-5

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Lexington Weiler Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-SEPTOCT- 1AC- Virillio

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Bronx