Democracy Good-Economy

Democracy increases economic and educational capabilities, solves all their offense.

Davis and Trebilcock 8 (Fall, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 56 Am. J.Comp. L. 895, Lexis)phol
The effects of improved governance on income in the long run are found to be very large, with an estimated 400 percent improvement in per capita income associated with an improvement in governance by one standard deviation, and similar improvements in reducing child mortality and illiteracy. To illustrate, an improvement in the rule of law by one standard deviation from the current levels in Ukraine to those "middling levels prevailing in South Africa would lead to a fourfold increase in per capita income in the long run. A larger increase in the quality of the rule of law (by two standard deviations) in Ukraine (or in other countries in the former Soviet Union), to the much higher level in Slovenia or Spain, would further multiply this income per capita increase. Similar results emerge from other governance dimensions: a mere one standard deviation improvement in voice and accountability from the low level of Venezuela to that of South Korea, or in control of corruption from the low level of Indonesia to the middling level of Mexico, or from the level of Mexico to that of Costa Rica, would also be associated with an estimated four fold increase in per capita incomes, as well as similar improvements in reducing child mortality by 75 percent and major gains in literacy.

K Answers Debate over Space Good

Debating over space policy is good the alternative kills US space leadership and action

Robert 89 Christopher Roberts, Controller and General Counsel to Atlantic Aerospace Electronics Corp,
November 17-18 1989, NASA and the Loss of Space Policy Leadership, Technology in Society, Vol. 12, pp. 139155 Since the close of the Apollo program, the United States has not had a coherent space policy. In fact, a strong argument can be made that the Apollo Program itself was not part of a coherent policy but was instead, a one-shot extravaganza. The past 20 years have shown that the American taxpayer is willing to support a steady-state level of planetary science/exploration and manned space activity, but not much more. Despite frequent Policy pronouncements from the White House, there is still no new national consensus on space. By default, NASA has taken a lead in the public debate over space policy by advocating, and in some cases commencing procurement of, large space projects in advance of achieving public policy consensus. This is not an ideal role for NASA. NASA is an implementer of policy; it should not be a maker of policy A policy is more than just a presidential speech. A policy forms the framework for numerous resource allocation decisions and provides the overall direction of a program. A policy is, or should be, a national commitment to a stated goal. America is a great nation and SHOULD accept the leadership responsibilities of a great nation. However, the American people do not quite see the connection between leadership and the space program desired by NASA. The US political leadership must either educate and persuade the American public to accept the connection, or else scale down the proposed space projects to match the publics willingness to provide funding. Until the US agrees on a goal for the space program which enjoys broad public support, the US cannot realistically hope to regain a leadership position in space exploration.

Not debating over space passes leadership to other countries

Robert 89 Christopher Roberts, Controller and General Counsel to Atlantic Aerospace Electronics Corp,
November 17-18 1989, NASA and the Loss of Space Policy Leadership, Technology in Society, Vol. 12, pp. 139155 The Apollo program was a clear program success but a bureaucratic failure. The program was cancelled and NASAs budget, staff, and prestige all suffered. By contrast, the Shuttle and Space Station programs are bureaucratic successes. They both have large and growing budgets and staff. As a program, however, the Shuttle was, at best, a limited success and, arguably, a failure as measured against the initial promises of its supporters. The SD1 program is also an example of a bureaucratic success and a program muddle. Another way to state the problem is that NASA does not want a space station, they want a space station program. One sign that the space station program has excessive bureaucracy is that the program has grown so much that there is already a private newsletter designed to keep program participants informed. It is important to recall the famous dictum that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Regrettably, NASA appears to have decided to ignore history. As discussed below, the Space Station program is repeating the mistakes of the SST and Shuttle programs. In planning the Moon-Mars mission and the Advanced Shuttle programs, NASA has again opted for pursuing bureaucratic success rather than program success. For example, NASA has already issued a contract to draft a users manual for the Shuttle C (a proposed advanced shuttle concept) program, which has not even reached the critical design stage. This will merely perpetuate the current program stagnation and, in effect, help pass leadership in space to other nations and groups of nations.

Debating about space is the only way to integrate all sciences, which is best for education failure to do so minimalizes humanity

Pass et al 10 Jim pass, Ph.D. in sociology and lecturer in sociology, Christopher Hearsey, ARI Director of
Programs and Special Projects, Simon Caroti, Ph.D. in literature and ARI Director of Educational and Public Outreach, September 2 2010, Refining the Definition of Astrosociology Utilizing Three Perspectives, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, http://www.astrosociology.org/Library/PDF/Space2010_3Perspectives.pdf As stated, we have passed the point in which a focus on astrosocial phenomena by a single social or behavioral science field is justifiable. A great hindrance to the field of astrosociology would occur if various social science fields began competing to become its official home in academia. We can avoid such a useless and harmful bout of conflict by sharing the field through a cooperative approach, through a collaborative effort aimed at bringing together the best of what each science can add to the study of astrosocial phenomena. In this way, we can maximize the potential for building the greatest body of knowledge possible. On the other hand, infighting can only lead to a minimalization of the effort to understand humanitys place in the universe and all of its fascinating corollaries. Defining a new field inevitably creates issues related to how it fits with existing fields and disciplines. Unless the field is so unique that nothing exists to share any part of its subject matter, a new field will share existing areas of content. Such is the case with astrosociology. Many of the space-related fields that focus nearly exclusively on biology, geology, astronomy, or cosmology as examples fail to pay much attention to their impact on human beings and their societies. What makes astrosociology unique, despite the fact that it does share considerable existing subject matter, relates to its focus on any topic that deals with the combination of humans and space, i.e., its focus on astrosocial phenomena. Existing fields such as space law and policy, and even astrobiology, do share overlapping contents, so what does this mean for the scope and boundaries of astrosociology? Astrosociology is different from the other fields in that it takes a social-scientific perspective and utilizes a multidisciplinary approach. It also binds existing fields together with a focus on the relationship between space and humanity. The human dimension serves the central conceptualization, or the glue that ties often-disparate topics together. Similarly, it alters existing space-related fields to some extent by adding the focus of astrosocial phenomena. An easily understood definition would also benefit efforts to collaborate between the space and social science communities. Fields and disciplines within the space community cannot continue without considering the human dimension and, in fact, they have not done so even if on an informal basis. Humans were always in the equation in various facets. However, they were secondary to the analysis. The formal acknowledgment of a dedicated social science field that is, astrosociology has made it possible to collaborate with a tangible group of social scientists rather than pioneering individuals, which has allowed for a more inclusive interaction among all types of scientists. Both branches of science can now finally work together, bridging the Great Divide to allow for a balance between solving engineering problems and conducting human-based research as a single unified effort.

Case Full Democracy cannot be realized while big energy companies are leading the energy economy. Only renewable energy and local democracy can solve.

Cromwell 2k (David Cromwell is an oceanographer and writer, http://www.ru.org/10-1cromwell.htm, Local Energy, Local Democracy Are economics and ecology on a collision course?, 2000, Renaissance Universal and Renaissance Magazine)phol
In their 1996 book Who Owns the Sun?, solar energy campaigners Daniel Berman and John OConnor rightly declared that democracy is a false promise if it does not include the power to steer the energy economy. Its a crucial point that not even Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth appear to have grasped; should we really be leaving it to the oil companies to create the solar revolution? Climate change is arguably the greatest threat facing humanity. Societys addiction to fossil fuelshard-wired by corporate greed and government handouts to the fossil fuel industry in the form of tax benefits and subsidiesis driving us down a highway of self-destruction. Diverting from such a suicidal course will

require a twin revolution: switching to renewable energy generation while also boosting the power of local democracy. This may seem an odd combination at first sight, but the reasoning behind it shows why opposing economic globalisation and replacing it with an ecological alternative is so important for the wellbeing of people and the planet. Here in the UK, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has told the government that carbon dioxide emissions must fall by 60% in the next 50 years if there is to be any realistic possibility of even a tolerable effect on the climate. But how likely are such huge cuts while transnational corporations dictate how society produces and consumes energy? According to the San Francisco-based Transnational Resource and Action Center (TRAC), Big Oils long-term strategy is still dictated by the urge to explore. New exploration and pipelines threaten the survival of peoples in the Amazon basin, Southeast Asia and North America. BP Amoco, the worlds largest solar company, is committed to spending $5 billion in the next 5 years on oil exploration and production in the sensitive environment of Alaska alone. This dwarfs the trifling sum of $45 million recently spent on its solar business division. Meanwhile, Shell proudly proclaims that it is focusing [its] energies on developing [renewable energy] solutions even as its annual reports project fossil fuel growth. Shells investment in renewables is only 10% of their spending on hydrocarbon exploration ($1 billion annually), 0.8% of its global investment ($12 billion) and only 0.06% of its global sales ($171 billion): a drop in the barrel, in other words. In the global economy, the unsustainable expansion of corporate activities into ever-larger markets means that there is an almost irresistible force driving the formation of mega-companies of all types. Growth demands further growth, and if companies do not expand in todays internationally competitive markets they stagnate and die. Smaller enterprises are swallowed up whole or trampled underfoot in the stampede to maintain or increase returns on short-term investment, or even simply to repay loan capital. The business of generating energy is no different in this respect to other industrial operations; there is an inherent trend away from small-scale, community-based enterprises towards large-scale, centralised operations. It should therefore come as no surprise that oil companies are engaged in a frenzy of mergers similar to news corporations, investment firms and biotech industries. Describing the ongoing BP Amoco merger, The Independent newspaper in London coolly reported that the existing cost reduction plan involves 10,000 redundancies, of which 6,000 have already been achieved. At Exxon and Mobil, job losses will exceed 9,000

In policy-related contexts, resolved denotes a proposal to be enacted by law Words and Phrases 1964 Permanent Edition
Definition of the word resolve, given by Webster is to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as it was resolved by the legislature; It is of similar force to the word enact, which is defined by Bouvier as meaning to establish by law.

Aff- Satellites Now

No impact- NASA building satellites to track debris now Defense Systems 5/23 [Defense Systems Staff, Air Force seeks even smarter space satellites, 5-23-2011
http://defensesystems.com/articles/2011/05/23/agg-air-force-automated-satellites-solicitation.aspx?admgarea=DS] It would seem that the military is tired of babysitting its satellites from thousands of miles away, and wants them to grow up and get a clue, according to Wireds Danger Room blogger Lena Groeger. While

todays satellites generally need a team of engineers to keep them updated and running, help them avoid space debris and process the data they collect it takes a

village, you know

the Air Force wants new satellites to be able to manage and care for themselves, according to its recent proposal. Among the items on the Air Forces wish list, the fully automated satellites would be able to determine any outside dangers to their health, discover, recognize and possibly address internal failures, and search for and act upon missile launches, all with little or no direction from their parental err human units.

Aff- Cost High

No Feasible Solution Exists Reichhardt 8 [ Tony Reichhardt: Air and Space Magazine, Satellite Smashers: Space-faring nations: Clean up low Earth orbit or you're
grounded, March 1, 2008, http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/space_debris.html

Two years later, that's still the case: No one knows how to begin removing orbital debris. "No easy or cheap solutions have yet been identified," Johnson says flatly. It isn't for lack of ideas. Well-meaning inventors have come forward with all kinds of schemes for clearing out space junk: space flypapers, sweepers, robot garbage scows. Take, for example, U.S. patent no. 4,991,799, filed in 1990, for a propeller-like sweeper that would ram into small particles
and knock them from a threatening orbit. Or patent no. 6,655,637, filed in 2002, for a robot that could grab space junk with "inflatable fingers." "Some of the ideas are technically outlandish, some are technically feasible," says Johnson. The problem, almost always, is cost.

"If you want to spend tens of millions to retrieve a single rocket body, you can do it," he says. "But it doesn't make any sense economically." So Johnson and other debris experts from Europe, the United States, and Japan are working
on a comprehensive study for the International Academy of Astronautics that will evaluate cleanup options. Results are due next year.

Lasers arent coming- costly Reichhardt 8 [ Tony Reichhardt: Air and Space Magazine, Satellite Smashers: Space-faring nations: Clean up low Earth orbit or you're
grounded, March 1, 2008, http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/space_debris.html Fragments between 1 and 10 centimeters in size will penetrate most spacecraft, according to the Aerospace Corporation's Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies, and more than 100,000 are estimated to be circling Earth. (Pieces even smaller than a centimeter can cause damage, as NASA space shuttle managers know; they've had to replace more than 60 shuttle windows, dinged by tiny particles.) In the 1990s, NASA and

the U.S. Air Force Space Command studied a concept called Orion, sometimes called a "laser broom," designed to eliminate small debris. A ground-based laser would be aimed at each object until pressure from the beam, coupled with the reaction
force from material ablating away from the target, sends it into a lower orbit. Orion, though, "turned out to be not all that easy technically," says Johnson. And with an estimated cost of $500 million, "it was certainly not within anybody's budget." The

system would have required its own tracking network, since current space surveillance cameras track objects only down to 10 centimeters. Engineers would have to work out a system that imparted enough momentum to move a chunk
of debris and that would be sure to lower instead of raise its orbit. "There are lots of little gotchas in the Orion final report," Johnson says. "There's a reason why it's been sitting on the shelf for more than a decade."