Biocentric approaches towards policies entrench the human-environmental dualism further
Paterson 6 (Barbara, Red Orbit, Avian Demography Unit, Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Cape Town in South Africa, Ethics for Wildlife Conservation: Overcoming the Human-Nature Dualism, 3/1/06, http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/410448/ethics_for_wildlife_conservation_overcoming_the_humannature_dualism/#uOkeloY9LSY3hiby.99)
The existence of intrinsic value in nature, on the other hand, would free conservationists of the obligation to prove that there is value in conserving a particular species. Although it is generally accepted that human life is intrinsically valuable, the possibility of intrinsic value in nonhuman life forms a large part of the environmental ethics debate. Extensionist approaches, which aim to define moral criteria on which such value can be based, are problematic for wildlife managers because they consider individual organisms, not species and ecosystems. By drawing directly from ecological concepts rather than from a human-centered frame of reference, philosophers such as Leopold, Rolston, and others call for a rethinking of our moral framework. Nonetheless, biocentric approaches to environmental ethics can be seen as implying the prioritization of nonhuman life over human life, thus sharpening the dichotomy between humans and the natural environment. The human- versus-nature dualism that underpins both the instrumental and the intrinsic value approaches is unhelpful to wildlife conservation and management, which are concerned with balancing both social and environmental goals.
Biotechnology reifies the dualism
Heller 05 (Chaia Heller, Ph.D., anthropology, University of Massachussetts, has been a teacher of social ecology and feminist theory at the Institute for Social Ecology for twenty years. Biotechnology, Democracy, and Revolution, Institute for Social Ecology, 1/1/5, http://www.social-ecology.org/2005/01/biotechnology-democracy-and-revolution/)
Biotechnology is a question of power. It is a question about the power to decide what kind of technologies a society will use and for what purpose. In this way, biotechnology is linked to the broader question of political power and democracy. It leads us to think about how we, as a society, make vital decisions about how to relate to each other and to the rest of the natural world. When we think about biotechnology in this way, we see that biotechnology is not just a technology per se. We see that it is also a way of making decisions about society and nature that has emerged at a particular point in history for particular reasons. If we see biotechnology as just a single issue of technology, then we miss the broader problem. We fail to talk about the broader system of power that brought biotechnology into being, a fundamental problem that we must face if we are to move toward creating a more democratic, creative, and humane world.¶ Biotechnology is a Society¶ Biotechnology is more than the technique of ‘recombinant DNA,’ the process through which biologists move strands of DNA from one cell to another. It is the society that produces biotechnology and that is, in turn, produced by it. Biotechnology is the networks of people, things, and institutions that bring it into being. It is the biotechnology industry, the corporations and government regulators that give corporations the carte blanche to produce their transgenic creations in their laboratories and to move them out into the world.
1NC
Exploration and development in the status quo relies on nature being a resource for our exploitation – this new form of nature imperialism relies on the division between human and nature – we must explore this binary to break it down
Rojcewicz 6 (Richard Rojcewicz, Professor of Philosophy @ Point Park University, “The Gods and Technology: A Reading of Heidegger”, 2006, http://www.mohamedrabeea.com/books/book1_10597.pdf) // KC
In contrast, today the land is