Evazon 2014
Nuclear MalthusMurray
45
Nuclear Malthus 1NC
First is Uniqueness nuclear war and civilization collapse due by
2050
1. Nuclear war is inevitable
a. Growing proliferation and lowered security
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
The breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War have
reduced the risk of a deliberate nuclear war XE "nuclear war"
between the United States XE "United States of America" and Russia
XE "Russia" , since much of the animosity is gone. Looking at the
world as a whole, however, the situation is more dangerous than
ever before. The number of nations possessing nuclear weapons XE
"nuclear weapons" has increased by two, with the addition of
Pakistan XE "Pakistan" and India XE "India" . The level of control
over the weapons of the former Soviet Union has been reduced. The
level of control over fissionable material from which nuclear bombs
can be made has also been reduced. With each passing year, the
amount of fissionable material in the world increases. With each
passing year, the resentment of the worlds poor nations and
cultures for the rich nations increases, as they realize that they
will never catch up. With each passing year, the anger of Islamic
XE "Islamic" nations and cultures against Western culture grows.
Terrorism is increasing. Although the risk of a large-scale
ballistic missile XE "ballistic missile" war XE "war" may have
decreased, the likelihood of a small nuclear war appears to have
increased dramatically. Motive, means, and opportunity. All three
prerequisites for action are set. The atomic bomb XE "atomic bomb"
was used as soon as it was available. In fact, it was used by the
US XE "United States of America" at a point in World War II XE
"World War II" when the war XE "war" was clearly won. In view of
the fact that a moral nation such as the US had no compunctions
about using nuclear weapons XE "nuclear weapons" just to bring the
war to an end a little quicker, it is obvious that any nation that
is in serious danger of losing a war would not hesitate to use
nuclear weapons against its enemies, if it had them. The seven
nuclear powers US XE "United States of America" , Russia XE
"Russia" , Britain, France XE "France" , China XE "China" , India
XE "India" , and Pakistan XE "Pakistan" possess thousands of
nuclear weapons XE "nuclear weapons" among them. The following
table is taken from the Natural Resources Defense Council XE
"Natural Resources Defense Council" s publication, Taking Stock:
Worldwide Nuclear Deployments 1998, by William M. Arkin, Robert S.
Norris, and Joshua Handler. Country No. of Warheads United States
XE "United States of America" 12,070 Russia XE "Russia" 22,500
Britain 380 France XE "France" 500 China XE "China" 450 Total
36,000 In addition, it is now estimated (Janes Intelligence Review)
that India XE "India" has 20-60 nuclear weapons XE "nuclear
weapons" , and Pakistan XE "Pakistan" between 6 and 12. India is
estimated to have sufficient commercial reactor XE "reactor" fuel
to build at least 390 nuclear weapons and perhaps as many as 470.
As discussed earlier, it is now an easy matter for any motivated
group to assemble an atomic bomb XE "atomic bomb" . It is just a
matter of time before nuclear weapons XE "nuclear weapons" are
used, either in a formally declared war XE "war" or in a terrorist
attack.
b. Envious nations
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
What are the odds that a minimal-regret war XE "war" will occur,
and a minimal-regret population XE "minimal-regret population"
established? Im not sure about the odds that a minimal-regret
population will be established, but I believe strongly that a
nuclear war XE "nuclear war" is inevitable. The reason for this
conviction is the politics of envy XE "politics of envy" the desire
of a have-not group to destroy an opponent who is better off, even
if by doing so his own position is unchanged or even worsened. The
politics of envy is a principal motivation of terrorist groups who
attack the United States XE "United States of America" . With the
proliferation of nuclear-weapon technology and weapons-grade
fissionable material, it is just a matter of time until a terrorist
group decides to use nuclear weapons XE "nuclear weapons" against
US cities. The US has lost control of its borders, and has accepted
immigrants XE "immigrants" from all cultures into all levels of its
society. It is very vulnerable. Under the politics of greed XE
"politics of greed" the use of politics to acquire more for
yourself regardless of the effect on your opponent, it may be in
the best interest of all groups to avoid nuclear war XE "nuclear
war" . That was the basis for the decades-long Cold War, in which
neither the US XE "United States of America" nor the Soviet Union
used nuclear weapons XE "nuclear weapons" . Both would lose more
than they gained. Under the politics of greed, mutually assured
destruction (MAD XE "mutual assured destruction" ) works as a
deterrent to war XE "war" . Under the politics of envy XE "politics
of envy" , MAD is essentially irrelevant. What matters most is
destruction of the opponent, at any cost. MAD will not save the US
now that the nuclear jinn is out of the bottle, and the world is
filled with unhappy have-nots with access to nuclear
technology.
2. Total collapse of industrial civilization inevitable with the
exhaustion of fossil fuels by 2050 continuing industrial
civilization only means further destruction of the biosphere and
extinction
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 2003(Joseph George, What Oil Can Do to Tiny States and
Big Ones, Too! February 3,
http://www.foundation.bw/WhatOilCanDo.htm)
What The Economist article fails to point out is that what
happens to small states when their national oil reserves run out is
much the same as will happen to big states when global oil reserves
run out. By the year 2050, global oil reserves will be exhausted,
and industrial civilization will collapse worldwide. But there is a
very significant and very tragic difference between the situation
when small states run out of oil and when the world runs out of
oil. When small states run out of oil, the population will simply
return to what they did before, or they will migrate, or they will
beg for food from the rest of the world. Life goes on, for them and
the rest of the planet, pretty much as before. When the world runs
out of oil, however, global human population will collapse and,
unless a significant intervention occurs, the biosphere will have
been destroyed by the petroleum age. As the energy inputs of oil
(mechanization, irrigation, insecticides and other modern
high-energy inputs) cease to flow, there will be a massive drop in
global food production. World human population will drop from over
six billion people to a few hundred million, since that is all that
the current-solar-energy budget of the planet will support in the
long term. The death of more than six billion people is not the
real tragedy, however, since everyone must someday die. The great
tragedy is that oil-fed global industrialization is destroying the
biosphere causing the extinction of an estimated 30,000 species a
year. If industrial civilization continues until global oil
supplies run out, what will remain will be a ruined planet, with
far less biological diversity than before oil. Because of global
warming, the petroleum age may even cause a greenhouse death of the
planet, with the extinction of mankind along with all other large
plant and animal species. Mankind is now in the process of causing
the extinction of all kinds of large animals tigers, rhinoceros,
beluga sturgeon, pandas, apes, orangutans, lemurs, chimpanzees just
to name a few. When the petroleum age is over, many of these
species will be gone forever. When the world returns to a
current-solar-energy-supported lifestyle, if mankind survives at
all it will inhabit a desolate place, devoid of the wonderful
variety of other large animals. Because of oil and global
industrialization, African and Asian populations have exploded, and
the current generation of Africans and Asians is now killing all of
the other primates, to eat as bush meat, or to use their habitat
for firewood or farmland, or to sell as pets to animal collectors
or zoos in other parts of the world. When the industrial age is
over and Africa and Asia return to a current-solar-energy
lifestyle, they will find it a lonely place to be for the next
several billion years. And who killed cock robin? It was the
petroleum age, it was technology, it was industrialization, it was
economic development it was civilization that killed cock robin. A
100-year drunken binge of incredibly profligate production and
consumption made possible by the one-time windfall of fossil fuel
-- will have caused the death of nature as we know it, as it
evolved over billions of years. Second is the link nuclear war now
is key to sustaining the population
1. Nuclear war ensures a minimal population and mindset
shift
CALDWELL, 2003. [Joseph George,. A Brief Guide to Planetary
Management.]It is believed that current human civilization will
destroy itself in a global nuclear war, or perhaps in some other
catastrophic event brought on by mankinds exploding population
(e.g., a disease similar to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV),
but more easily transmitted). It is intended to establish a
minimal-regret population after that event. The current planetary
system of government is best described as anarchic it consists of
about 200 independent states, each striving for large populations
and high levels of industrial output, each striving to out-produce
and out-consume the other, regardless of consequences to the
planets biosphere. The momentum and power of the worlds industrial
society is currently so great, however, that there is no point to
attempting to establish a minimal-regret population at the present
time. Any attempt to do so now would be ridiculed at best and
quashed at worst. In the wake of global nuclear war, the survivors
will see first-hand the folly of the worlds current way of global
industrialization, and they will be very receptive to a promising
alternative. It is at that time that steps will be taken to
establish and maintain a minimal-regret population.
2. Major war ensures the end of industrial civilization
CALDWELL 2000. [Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista
Research Corporation. P.
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm.]
What has caused mankind to get into such a predicament? The
problem would appear to be that mankind does not have the foggiest
idea about why it exists and what its purpose is. If the
minimal-regret war succeeds, large-scale industrial activity will
come to an immediate halt, and the planets biosphere will be able
to continue as it has for millions of years. Without the
minimal-regret war, it would appear that mankind will exterminate
itself rather soon, and we shall never have the answer to the
question, What Are People For? With the war, and with a thousand
years of meditation, it is perhaps possible that mankind will have
some time to reflect and may be able to figure out what it is all
about. Was mankind created simply to destroy the planet and itself?
Or does it have a higher purpose? All civilizations come to an end,
and the civilization that results from a minimal-regret war will
come to an end as well. Current civilization is madly racing to
destroy the planet for no reason at all. A minimal-regret
population will give mankind time to figure out what its purpose
is, before all of nature is gone.Third are the net benefits war now
is better than war later
1. The sooner war happens the more species will survive
A. Industrial society kills 30,000 species a year
CALDWELL, 2001. On Saving the Environment, and the Inevitability
of Nuclear War. www.foundation.bw.
The destruction of the planet's environment and biodiversity may
coincidentally be halted by global war, but saving biodiversity or
the environment will not be the cause of global war. Less and less
of nature remains with each passing year of the current "global
peace" of global industrialization. The longer global war is
delayed, the less of nature (species, biodiversity) will remain
after its occurrence. The large human population has been made
possible because of access to fossil fuel. The planet can support
only a small fraction of its current human population on recurrent
solar energy (which includes hydroelectric, biomass, and wind
power). Global petroleum and natural gas deposits will not be
exhausted until about 2050 (and coal somewhat later), so the
world's current fossil-fuel-driven economy can hypothetically
continue for some time to come. If industrialized human society
continues to destroy other species at the current rate (estimated
30,000 per year) until fossil fuels are exhausted, little will
remain of the planet's natural environment as we know it. Mankind
is hurtling toward disaster -- the biosphere's and its own -- and
there is nothing that will be done to stop it. Industrial
development has sewn the seeds of its own destruction. The
situation is out of control. The human population explosion has
already occurred, and the resultant destruction -- first of the
environment and then of industrial society and then, perhaps, of
the human race itself -- is at hand. Mankind has chosen its
destiny, and is well along the path to its realization.
B. DRAMATIC reductions in human population key now the longer
industrial civilization survives the more likely it will lead to
total global destruction
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
World Resources XE "World Resources" 1998-1999 presents a table,
Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse and Ozone-Depleting
Gasses, 1965-96. This table indicates that the concentration of
carbon dioxide has risen from the preindustrial level of 260.0
parts per million (ppm) to 319.9 ppm in 1965 biodiversity XE
"biodiversity" left to save. As Walt Kelly XE "Kelly, Walt" s
cartoon character Pogo XE "Pogo" once observed, We have met the
enemy, and he is us! What is causing the severe problems in the
Earths biosphere is mans presence in large numbers. The human
species XE "species" , with economics XE "economics" as a catalyst,
has infested the planet. It has grown like a cancer to the point
where it is killing many species and, if it continues, will kill
both itself and the rest of the biosphere. It is a parasite killing
its host. The time to treat this disease is long overdue. and 362.6
ppm in 1996. This concentration is increasing at the rate of almost
.5% per year. Carbon dioxide concentrations are caused by burning
of fossil fuels XE "fossil fuel" and forests. Each year the
concentration of this greenhouse gas increases, as the human
species XE "species" continues its relentless destruction of
irreplaceable fossil fuels and wildlife habitat. This destruction
will not stop until a dramatic reduction is made in human
population and industrial activity. Mankinds industrial activity is
causing changes at a horrific rate. The rate of change will
increase even faster as undeveloped countries industrialize. In
view of the fact that the consequences of these changes will be
catastrophic, as radical as it may seem, human population and
industrial activity must be reduced dramatically and immediately in
order for the planet to survive. There is no known reason for
waiting. With every passing year there is less Ethics
Allowing nuclear war is more moral than allowing the destruction
of the earth through overpopulation mass nuclear war is the only
way to ensure survival
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
If the morality XE "morality" of nuclear war XE "nuclear war" is
to be considered, the morality of destroying a planet and all its
species XE "species" by overpopulation and industrialization XE
"industrialization" must also be considered. Works on this subject
include Fritz Schumacher XE "Schumacher, Ernst Friedrich (Fritz)" s
books and the plethora of books on environmentalism XE
"environmentalism" , including Healing the Planet by Paul and Anne
Ehrlich, Rescue the Earth! by Farley Mowat XE "Mowat, Farley" ,
Gaia XE "Gaia" : A New Look at Life on Earth by J. E. Lovelock XE
"Lovelock, J. E." , The End of Nature by Bill McKibben XE
"McKibben, Bill" , Silent Spring by Rachel Carson XE "Carson,
Rachel" , Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management by Norman Myers, ed.,
and many more, some of which are listed in the bibliography.
Although a minimal-regret nuclear war XE "nuclear war" may kill
almost six billion people, that must be balanced against the very
real possibility that not having such a war XE "war" may not only
result in the deaths of six billion people, but also the extinction
XE "extinction" of mankind and the extinction of all other species
XE "species" on the planet (from the greenhouse effect). If the
human race XE "race" is made extinct by the greenhouse effect,
millions of people will have been denied life for every year of the
next four billion years that the solar system is expected to last.
If the Earth can support ten million people indefinitely, that
represents forty quadrillion person-years of life. Is that amount
of human life inconsequential compared to the lives of the mere six
billion that occupy the planet today?
Uniqueness carrying capacity exists
Carrying capacity exists human activity is currently causing
overpopulation and species extinction, critics ignore this and
their arguments are vacuous.
Caldwell 99, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in
Mathematical Statistics
(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research Corporation,
June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
Julian Simon XE "Simon, Julian L." and other economists argue
that the world can easily support even more people than it
currently does, at a good level of living. Their arguments are
vacuous, in view of the fact that the number of desperately poor
people in the world has risen dramatically in the past
half-century, despite Herculean efforts by the World Bank XE "World
Bank" , UN XE "United Nations" and other development agencies to
accomplish otherwise. Economist Lyndon LaRouche (candidate for the
1988 US XE "United States of America" presidential race XE "race" )
argued strongly for a substantially higher global human population
than presently exists. In his book, There Are No Limits to Growth,
he states that our planet could sustain a population of tens of
billions of persons, and at an average standard of living higher
than that for the United States during the early 1970s. In the
article, The World Needs 10 Billion People, Steven Bardwell argued
that a nuclear-powered, high-technology human civilization XE
"civilization" that is capable of colonizing the solar system
cannot function with fewer than 10 billion of us (Fusion, September
1981). He observed that as population increases, the division of
labor allows for more efficient use of human resources XE
"resources" and hence greater productivity. The fact that physical
scientists estimate that the world is losing 50-150 species XE
"species" or more per day because of human activities such as
deforestation, pollution XE "pollution" , pesticides, and
urbanization XE "urbanization" is of little or no concern to
economists such as Simon XE "Simon, Julian L." and LaRouche. They
routinely pooh-pooh such observations about human-caused
destruction of the world environment XE "environment" and ecosystem
as erroneous, unfounded, overblown, or of no consequence. That we
may all be as crowded as the people of Japan XE "Japan" , or
Singapore, or Hong Kong XE "Hong Kong" , and live in a world devoid
of tigers, pandas, eagles, and whales is of no significance, as
long as economic productivity increases!The US has already passed
its carrying capacity collapse inevitable with out population
cutsAbernethy, Ph.D, 1993 (Virginia, Population Politics, Carrying
Capacity Network, http://dieoff.org/page58.htm)Now for the bad
news. Depletion of soil, water, and fuel at a much faster rate than
any of these can be replenished suggests that the carrying capacity
of the United States already has been exceeded. David and Marcia
Pimentel (1991) of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,
Cornell University, take these three factors into account to
estimate that, at a standard of living only slightly lower than is
enjoyed today, the sustainable population size for the United
States is less than half its present number. Beyond this, we abuse
the carrying capacity and should expect sudden shocks that will
massively drive down the standard of living. The Pimentels embrace
the desirability and potential for a transition to clean, renewable
energy sources as substitute for most uses of oil. The very breadth
of their approach leads to their addressing all present and
potential energy sources. They find: Evaluating land, energy, and
water, the Pimentels conclude that the United States is rapidly
depleting its nonrenewable or very slowly renewable resources and
overwhelming the capacity of the environment to neutralize wastes.
The present level of resource use is probably unsustainable in even
the minimal, physical sense. If population increase and the present
per capita use of resources persist, a crash becomes likely.
Uniqueness energy = finite
The amount of energy on earth is finite abundance of energy is
responsible for all benefits of society including technology,
nothing except a massive decrease in consumption can save
energy
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
The current explosive growth in the human population has been
made possible by the availability of a large amount of cheap energy
XE "energy" . Some people mistakenly believe that the current large
population and high standard of living (for some people) is due to
technology. Technology without energy is useless. On the other
hand, energy without technology is also useless (for industrial
applications, not for natural biological processes). To use energy
it is necessary to have an energy source (e.g., the sun, uranium XE
"uranium" ) and the technology to harness it. The human population
will continue to grow as long as cheap energy is abundantly
available. When fossil fuels XE "fossil fuel" run out and cheap
energy is no longer available, the human population will decline
markedly. All the technology in the world is of no avail (for
industrial activity) without a source of energy. The availability
of large amounts of energy XE "energy" is responsible not only for
the explosive growth in the human population, but for virtually
every material, social, and economic benefit of human society.
Appendix F presents a number of graphs that show the relationship
of a variety of social and economic indicators XE "economic
indicators" to commercial energy use. These graphs show that, on
average, the citizens of a country enjoy a high quality of life XE
"quality of life" (e.g., high life expectancy, low infant
mortality, high literacy rates) when the per capita commercial
energy consumption XE "energy consumption" exceeds 2,500 kilograms
of oil XE "oil" equivalent (koe). As the energy consumption falls
below that level, the quality of life falls accordingly. The level
2,500 koe is the minimal energy level required for a country to be
able to provide a good standard of living for its citizens. The
main implication of this observation is that the provision of a
minimum of 2,500 koe per capita per annum to all human inhabitants
of Earth will require either a dramatic increase in the amount of
energy XE "energy" available, or a dramatic decrease in the human
population size. The following paragraphs show some of the
calculations underlying the situation.
Uniqueness resource gone by 2050
Fossil fuels will be used up oil and gas will be gone by 2050,
coal will be gone by 2200 but will leave devastating climate
changes behind
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
These tables show that even at current rates of production, it
is projected that oil XE "oil" and gas reserves will be exhausted
in the next 50 years, and coal reserves within about 200 years.
People argue about just exactly what the true size of the reserves
is, but the point is that before very long industrialized man will
have exhausted the fossil fuels XE "fossil fuel" . These
projections are somewhat conjectural, since the burning of all of
the oil, gas, and coal reserves, accompanied by the burning of much
of the worlds forests, would add such a large amount of carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere that some sort of major climatic change
would be expected to occur before exhaustion of the reserves.
Uniqueness industrialization increasing
The damage from industrialization is increasing exponentially we
use more resources to maintain civilization and hundreds of species
go extinct every day
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
The bleakest picture of all is painted by economist Julian Simon
XE "Simon, Julian L." . He observes that, because of technological
advances, the dollar cost of extracting resources XE "resources"
from the natural environment XE "environment" falls year after
year. As a result, the planets mineral, plant, and animal resources
are plundered at an ever-increasing rate. It has been estimated a
dead Bengal tigers parts now fetch a million dollars. Some time
ago, it was speciously argued that if the price of animal products
rose sufficiently, steps would be taken to preserve this valuable
resource it just made economic sense to do so. The falseness of
this proposition has been demonstrated over and over again. So few
tigers exist in the wild that they are now considered effectively
extinct as a wild species XE "species" . Similar exterminations of
the black rhino, the musk deer, the panda, and other animals have
been caused directly by human overpopulation. While some of the
rampant destruction of mammals is direct killing, much species XE
"species" loss is an inevitable consequence of destruction of
wildlife habitat, such as forests and wetlands. The planet is
undergoing the greatest mass extinction XE "extinction" since the
time of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago. Although nobody knows
for sure, it has been estimated ( ) that we are losing between 50
and 100 species XE "species" a day (mostly from habitat
destruction) from the 5-30 million species thought to exist. Some
scientists estimate the extinction rate at 150 species per day (W.
V. Reid and K. R. Miller, , World Resources XE "World Resources"
Institute, 1989). In 1970 there were 65,000 black rhinos in Africa;
in 1993 there were just 2,000. The global population XE
"population, global" of tigers has dropped by 95% in this century,
to about 5,000. As of 1994, only a few dozen remained in China XE
"China" . The Caspian, Balinese, and Javan tigers became extinct
over a decade ago. The population of Sumatran tigers has dropped to
650, and the Siberian Amur has declined to 200. (See , March 28,
1994, Tigers on the Brink.) The alarming fact is that the
destruction of the Earths environment XE "environment" is
increasing, not decreasing. The level of industrial activity is
increasing, not decreasing, and the destruction of the environment
is continuing apace.
Uniqueness Civilization Collapse Now Key
Each year industrial civilization is prolonged means more
species extinction and further destruction of the biosphere the
sooner we end civilization the more likely we avoid
extinctionCaldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in
Mathematical Statistics, 2003(Joseph, The End of the World, 6
March, http://foundation.bw/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm#_Toc34744202)
The state of the world is disastrous. The planet is currently
experiencing the greatest mass extinction of species since the time
of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, and it is being caused
solely by mankinds massive numbers and industrial activity. Most of
the species extinction is being caused by rampant destruction of
forests and wildlife habitat. In other cases, species are being
deliberately singled out for destruction, as in the case of
rhinoceros horn (for Yemeni dagger handles), or tigers (for Chinese
medicine), or whales (for Japanese whale-meat shops). Industrial
gasses are poisoning the atmosphere to such an extent that the
ozone layer that protects all biological life from extreme
radiation is being destroyed. These gasses are contributing to
global warming. Signs of global warming are dramatic and
ubiquitous; see the web site http://www.climatehotmap.org for a
description of the global-warming picture. Mankinds large numbers
and industrial activity are causing such great changes to the
atmosphere that it is conceivable that all life on the planets
surface could be extinguished in a relatively short time. Apart
from the possibility that present human numbers and activity risk
catastrophic destruction of the planets biosphere, the human
species is at the very least causing a tremendous change in the
planets biodiversity. Of the estimated 5-30 million species on the
planets surface, an estimated 30,000 are being exterminated every
year. The naturalist Edward O. Wilson has estimated that if the
current rate of extinction continues, half the Earths plant and
animal species will disappear by the end of the twenty-first
century. With each passing year, the world becomes a less and less
varied and interesting place to be. With each passing year, mankind
is disturbing to a greater degree the balance of nature in the
biosphere in which it evolved over millions of years, increasing
the risk of precipitating major planetary changes and its own
extinction.Civilization Unsustainable overpop and resources
Civilizations collapse is inevitable when overpopulation and
resource use become too much - the longer we let industrial
civilization continues the greater the risk of extinction from
resource wars, species extinction, massive climate changes and
overpopulations. Ending industrial civilization key.Caldwell,
Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics,
1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
In the past four centuries, the world human population has
skyrocketed, from about half a billion people to six billion at the
present time. Population projections from various sources suggest
that, barring a major change of some kind, the population will
continue to soar, to nine billion or more by the year 2050. In the
past half-century less than a lifetime -- the population of the US
XE "United States of America" has exploded from about 150 million
to over 270 million. This explosive growth occurred despite the
fact that fertility XE "fertility" rates in the US dropped to low
levels it is the result of uncontrolled immigration XE
"immigration" . The tremendous global population XE "population,
global" increase has been brought about by the development of
technology to utilize the energy XE "energy" stored in fossil fuels
XE "fossil fuel" , such as petroleum XE "petroleum" , natural gas,
and coal. Petroleum and gas reserves will be exhausted, however, by
about 2050, and coal reserves will not last much beyond that date
if industrial development continues to expand worldwide. Look
around you. If you live in the US XE "United States of America" or
other economically developed country, every man-made thing you see
or see happening is a product of the expenditure of energy XE
"energy" , and most of that energy is derived from fossil fuels XE
"fossil fuel" . To establish and maintain our present lifestyle
requires prodigious amounts of energy an amount equivalent to about
8,000 kilograms of oil XE "oil" annually for each man, woman, and
child living in the country. Pre-agricultural man lived off the
land, consuming only the bounty of nature. Agricultural man could
produce about 10 calories of energy with the expenditure of about
one calorie of energy. Industrial man, it has been estimated, uses
over ten calories of energy to produce a single calorie of food!
The present system is not only exquisitely wasteful, but it is
completely unsustainable. Most of what you see in the industrial
world is a transitory illusion made possible by a one-time windfall
supply of energy from fossil fuels that were accumulated over
millions of years. When the fossil fuel reserves deplete in about
50 years, the modern world will simply disappear along with them.
Whatever age you are, if you were raised in a town or a small city,
go back to where you lived as a child and observe what has happened
to the nearest natural field you played in. Chances are it is now
urban sprawl pavement, concrete, and steel. For each immigrant
admitted to the US XE "United States of America" legal or illegal
about an acre of natural land is permanently destroyed, by roads,
buildings, parking lots, houses, schools, and other structures that
take the land out of production both for wildlife and for
agriculture. Last year the US admitted 1.2 million more immigrants
XE "immigrants" . That represents the complete destruction of
another .6 million acres of farmland, forest XE "forest" , and
pastureland. Who cares? Certainly not the people in charge they
want more people because it makes more money, and they are not
particularly concerned with the concomitant destruction of the
environment XE "environment" ! Industrial activity at the massive
scale of the present is causing substantial changes to Earths
environment XE "environment" . By now, everyone knows that the
atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other gases
produced by industrial activity is increasing substantially every
year, and that the planets climate and weather are controlled by
these concentrations. Large-scale industrial activity is causing
substantial changes to the planets environment land, air, water,
and ecology XE "ecology" . In view of the established relationship
of the planets climate and ecosystem to these concentrations, it is
possible that mans industrial activity could cause dramatic changes
in the sea level, and trigger another ice age or create a lifeless
hothouse. And for what good reason? What is the good purpose of
burning all the planets fossil fuels XE "fossil fuel" as fast as
possible, when it risks the destruction not only of mankind but of
much other life on the planet as well? The answer is None. This
activity cannot continue at current levels without risking dire
consequences, even apart from the issue of depletion of fossil fuel
reserves and other nonrenewable resources XE "resources" . To
continue to do so is the height of folly.
Civilization Unsustainable waste products
Waste produced by industrial civilization makes it unsustainable
the ecosystem cannot sustain industrialization
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
Having an adequate energy XE "energy" supply is just half of the
problem. The other half of the problem is what to do about the
waste. In the natural ecosystem, energy is obtained from the sun
each day, and continuously converted by living creatures into waste
that is completely consumed by other living creatures. Mankind,
however, uses energy to produce waste that cannot be consumed by
living creatures. For industrial man to continue to survive, i.e.,
to be sustainable, it is necessary (although not sufficient) for
him to eliminate all of the waste that his industrial activity
produces. Present day man does not do this. He simply dumps most of
the waste toxic, radioactive XE "radioactive" , or other into the
environment XE "environment" . In order for man to survive in the
ecosystem as we know it, it must be the case that all of his waste
is reprocessed. Otherwise there is no balance of nature. Biological
creatures do not have to worry about reprocessing their waste;
evolution and the balance of nature have taken care of that.
Industrial creatures such as man must worry very much about this,
or they will soil their nest and make it unlivable. For every joule
of energy that is used by man, he must insure that the waste
produced by it is reprocessed (completely). In order for mankind to
continue indefinitely with any level of industrial activity, its
production of nonbiodegradable or nonrecyclable waste must stop.
Either the production of nonbiodegradable items must cease, or
energy XE "energy" must be expended to transform the industrial
products into biodegradable ones. Virtually all industrial products
end up as waste, within a few years. This includes all of our
appliances, containers, clothes, furniture, cars, buildings, and
infrastructure (roads, bridges, power XE "power" lines, sewage
treatment plants). Transforming nonbiodegradable substances into
biodegradable ones requires energy, and usually lots of it. In some
cases, nonbiodegradable items can be reprocessed and reused, e.g.,
used aluminum cans into new aluminum cans. In some cases, highly
toxic materials must be burned at high temperatures to break them
down. Radioactive materials cannot be destroyed (except in a
nuclear reaction). To date, the approach to industrial waste has
largely been to ignore it, i.e., to sweep it under the rug by
transporting to landfills, or by dumping in rivers, lakes, or
oceans. This approach is not sustainable, and in fact cannot
continue for very long at all at todays high rates of industrial
activity. At some point sufficient energy XE "energy" must be
expended to convert all industrial waste into useful products or
biodegradable products. Data are not readily available on how much
energy will be required to do this. If it is (optimistically?)
assumed that the same amount of energy is required to dispose of
industrial products as was expended to create them in the first
place, then the amount of energy required per capita doubles. In
this case, the planets solar energy XE "solar energy" budget could
not support one billion industrial human beings, but only 500
million. It is quite possible that a significant population of
industrial human beings can never be sustained on the planet. Prior
to industrial man, all of the plant and animal waste production
from the entire solar energy XE "solar energy" supply was 100%
recycled all of the waste from one species XE "species" was food
for another. Industrial mankind produces waste that is toxic to the
ecology XE "ecology" , and that is not recycled at all. By relying
on energy XE "energy" sources other than solar (such as nuclear),
man also generates much more waste than is possible under a current
solar energy budget. At some industrial activity level, the planets
ecosystem will simply be unable to reprocess the industrial waste
generated by man on a long-term basis. It is quite conceivable that
the planets ecosystem (as we currently know it) can survive in the
long run only as a photosynthetic system on a current solar energy
budget, without massive input of energy (and toxic waste) from
other sources. If this is the case, there is no place for
industrial man on the planet at all.
Current Population Unsustainable (1/2)
Current levels of resource consumption and production will not
be able to sustain population growth
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
The current commercial energy XE "energy" consumption XE "energy
consumption" of all countries in the world is about 8,000 megatons
(million tons) of oil XE "oil" equivalent (International Energy
Agency XE "International Energy Agency" , Energy Statistics and
Balances of Non-OECD Countries, 1993-1994, p. 61). This means that
at current production levels, the average energy consumption per
person worldwide is 6 billion people divided by 8 billion tons of
oil equivalent, or about 1.333 tons of oil equivalent (toe) = 1,333
koe (the official figure for 1995 is 1,474 koe, according to World
Development Report XE "World Development Report" 1998/99). For each
of the worlds current six billion people to have access to 2,500
kilograms (2.5 tons) of oil equivalent annually would require a
total production of 15 gigatons (billion tons) of oil equivalent (6
billion people x 2.5 toe per person). That is about double current
production. When the world population XE "population, world"
reaches nine or twelve billion, the amount required will be 22.5
gigatons or 30 gigatons, respectively, or three or four times
current production. When compared to the energy XE "energy" that
will be available from current solar sources, the comparisons are
even starker. Pimentel XE "Pimentel, David and Marcia" et al.
estimate that a maximum of 200 quads (quadrillion BTU, where
quadrillion means one million million) of energy might be available
for human use from solar sources, or about five billion tons of oil
XE "oil" equivalent (toe). This is about five gigatons of oil
equivalent (Gtoe). (See Appendix B for factors for converting from
BTUs to other energy units.) That is, the amount of energy that
would be required to provide twelve billion people with 2.5 toe
(i.e., 30 Gtoe) is about six times that available from solar energy
XE "solar energy" (i.e., 5 Gtoe). What does this mean? Well, China
XE "China" and India XE "India" intend to raise the standard of
living for their two billion people to a level comparable to the
rest of the world. At a level of 2.5 tons of oil XE "oil"
equivalent (toe) per person, that will require 5 billion toe of
energy XE "energy" , or all of that available from solar energy XE
"solar energy" . This means that, when the oil, gas and coal run
out, China and India will require the entire solar energy budget
for the planet, just for their people alone. This means either that
there will be an awful lot of nuclear power XE "nuclear power"
being used, or the rest of us will just have to go! And the problem
is not just China XE "China" and India XE "India" . Figures 26-28
of Appendix F summarize the distribution of commercial energy XE
"energy" use for the countries of the world. These figures show
that the vast majority of countries (about 55%) have per capita
commercial energy consumption XE "energy consumption" s of 1,000
koe or less, and that only 25% have per capita energy consumptions
of 2,500 koe or more. In other words, in the world of today,
relatively few countries have per capita energy use levels that
enable a high standard of living. Most of these countries have no
access to nuclear power XE "nuclear power"
XE "power" , and it is unlikely that they ever will. When oil XE
"oil" , gas, and coal run out, there are going to be a lot of very
unhappy people around.
Current Population Unsustainable (2/2)
Current population levels unsustainable massive wars
inevitable
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
World peace in an absolute sense meaning the total absence of
organized conflict is evidently an unachievable goal for mankind. A
more realistic goal may be some sort of semi-stable equilibrium
involving a controlled level of conflict. All plant and animal
species XE "species" have birth rates that exceed replacement
levels, else they would soon become extinct. The population sizes
of all species would explode were it not for the balance of nature
that keeps population sizes in equilibrium. Any species that
proliferates is doomed to a rapid, edsxzcatastrophic population
collapse. Technological man can temporarily upset the balance of
nature and fill the planet with billions of human beings, but this
cannot last. If natures other species do not keep the human
population in check, then mankind will perform this function
itself, through war XE "war" (organized conflict collective killing
for a collective purpose, in the words of John Keegan XE "Keegan,
John" ). In the absence of natural control of mankinds numbers, war
is inevitable. And as the human population explodes, the likelihood
and the magnitude of war must explode as well. War, war, and more
war that is what is in mankinds future XE "future" .
Nuclear War Inevitable
The end of mutual deterrence makes nuclear war and nuclear
technology development inevitable
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
The situation is now quite different. The chance of a
large-scale ballistic missile XE "ballistic missile" nuclear war XE
"nuclear war" may have lessened, but because of the lessening of
control over nuclear weapons XE "nuclear weapons" , technology, and
materials (following the disintegration of the Soviet Union), the
odds of a small-scale nuclear war XE "war" would appear to have
increased substantially. India XE "India" and Pakistan XE
"Pakistan" recently conducted nuclear-bomb tests, and are now
members of the nuclear club. Their relations are antagonistic. With
the decreased level of control over nuclear weapons, technology,
and materials, the chance that a rogue nation or terrorist group
could bomb one or even many cities using small suitcase-sized
nuclear bombs has probably increased substantially. In any event,
the means and opportunity for a small nuclear attack are growing
every year. The only consolation is that such an attack would
probably not be large (like a full-fledged ballistic-missile
attack). The state of the world XE "state of the world" with
respect to nuclear war XE "nuclear war" was dangerous during the
Cold War, and it remains so. While the odds of a large-scale
ballistic-missile war XE "war" may have decreased, the odds of a
small-scale nuclear war have increased.
Nuclear War Inevitable envious nations
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
What are the odds that a minimal-regret war XE "war" will occur,
and a minimal-regret population XE "minimal-regret population"
established? Im not sure about the odds that a minimal-regret
population will be established, but I believe strongly that a
nuclear war XE "nuclear war" is inevitable. The reason for this
conviction is the politics of envy XE "politics of envy" the desire
of a have-not group to destroy an opponent who is better off, even
if by doing so his own position is unchanged or even worsened. The
politics of envy is a principal motivation of terrorist groups who
attack the United States XE "United States of America" . With the
proliferation of nuclear-weapon technology and weapons-grade
fissionable material, it is just a matter of time until a terrorist
group decides to use nuclear weapons XE "nuclear weapons" against
US cities. The US has lost control of its borders, and has accepted
immigrants XE "immigrants" from all cultures into all levels of its
society. It is very vulnerable. Under the politics of greed XE
"politics of greed" the use of politics to acquire more for
yourself regardless of the effect on your opponent, it may be in
the best interest of all groups to avoid nuclear war XE "nuclear
war" . That was the basis for the decades-long Cold War, in which
neither the US XE "United States of America" nor the Soviet Union
used nuclear weapons XE "nuclear weapons" . Both would lose more
than they gained. Under the politics of greed, mutually assured
destruction (MAD XE "mutual assured destruction" ) works as a
deterrent to war XE "war" . Under the politics of envy XE "politics
of envy" , MAD is essentially irrelevant. What matters most is
destruction of the opponent, at any cost. MAD will not save the US
now that the nuclear jinn is out of the bottle, and the world is
filled with unhappy have-nots with access to nuclear technology.
Nuclear War Inevitable envious nations, desire to save the planet
and diminishing resources
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 2003(Joseph, The End of the World, 6 March,
http://foundation.bw/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm#_Toc34744202)
It would appear that global nuclear war is inevitable, for
several reasons. A major factor is the politics of envy the desire
for the have-nots of the world to destroy what the haves have. The
gap between the industrialized west and the rest of the world is
widening, and the hatred and envy are growing as the poorer nations
realize that they will never catch up. Each year, millions more
human beings are born into direst poverty, overcrowding, misery and
hopelessness. The realization is dawning that it is global
industrialization that is the root cause of human misery, and the
motivation to bring that inhumane system to an end is growing as
fast as the global human population. With the proliferation of
plutonium from nuclear reactors, terrorists and rogue nations will
soon have the capability to produce thousands of suitcase-sized
nuclear bombs, and deliver them to any cities in the world. As
mentioned earlier, no missiles or airplanes or submarines are
required. Another reason why global nuclear war appears inevitable
is the fact that nuclear war dominates all other proposed solutions
as a means of stopping the ongoing species extinction. No other
alternative accomplishes this. As long as this situation holds, it
is just a matter of time until the global-nuclear-war solution is
implemented, since continuing on the present course leads to a dead
planet. It would appear that 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. There is
also a third factor motivating global war, and that involves
timing. With the passage of time, less and less benefit accrues to
the winner. If anyone is motivated to wage global nuclear war and
has the means to do so, sooner is very likely better than later. If
delayed too long, there may be nothing left to gain. With each
passing year, the planet's biodiversity decreases, another two
percent of the planet's remaining petroleum reserves are consumed,
and the risk of biospheric extinction (e.g., from a greenhouse
effect) increases.
Impact deforestation
Maintaining industrial civilization causes massive deforestation
leading to plant and animal extinction
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
L
Over the last century the world has lost half its original
forest XE "forest" area, and much so-called reforestation is simply
replacing ecologically diverse forests with monoculture tree
plantations. Each year, man destroys another 16 million hectares of
ecologically diverse forest. In the article, A Non-Fuzzy Earth Day,
in the May 3, 1999 issue of Time, Pranay Gupte (editor and
publisher of The Earth Times) summarizes the situation. In the past
20 years, forests have disappeared in 25 countries, and over 95% of
the forests have disappeared in 18 countries. There were an
estimated 60 billion hectares of forest on the planet just before
World War II XE "World War II" ; now, because of logging, cutting
for firewood, and desertification, there are 3.6 billion. (Figures
from the World Commission on Forests and Sustainable Development).
The World Conservation Union estimates that this forest decline
threatens 12.5% of the worlds 275,000 species XE "species" of
plants and 75% of its mammals.Impact - environment
Overpopulation is the root cause of environmental destruction
continuing population explosion resulting from industrial society
will ultimately lead to extinction
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
The root cause of all of the environmental and ecological
problems facing the planet is twofold: the very large human
population, and the extraordinarily high levels of toxic waste
produced by industrial activity. The planet can and has harbored a
large number of human beings for very long periods in the past. It
has been estimated that the human population has been approximately
2-20 million for the past hundred thousand years, while mankind
existed in a hunting-gathering XE "hunting-gathering" mode,
increasing to about 200-300 million after the advent of the
agricultural revolution XE "revolution" (10,000 years ago). Human
population growth is often depicted in a famous curve called Deevys
curve, after the man who first presented it (Edward S. Deevy, The
Human Population, Scientific American, vol. 203, no. 9, September
1960, pp. 195-204). This curve is shown, for example, on p. 95 of
Cohen XE "Cohen, Joel E." s How Many People Can the Earth Support,
or p. 101 of Piel XE "Piel, Gerard" s Only One World. It shows
three main population surges: one when man invented weapons and
tools (three million years ago); one when man developed agriculture
(about 10,000 years ago); and one when the industrial revolution XE
"revolution" began, less than 500 year ago. The three levels of
population for these surges are global population XE "population,
global" s of about 2-20 million human beings (preagricultural Stone
Age), 200-300 million (preindustrial agriculture), and the present
time. The population surge for the present time has not yet leveled
off, but it will, very soon. The total land area of Earth is 148.9
million square kilometers, of which 14.2 million is Antarctica and
11 million is desert. This leaves about 125 million square
kilometers of habitable land. A total population size of say, 5
million, hence represents a density of about 4 people every 100
square kilometers. At that low level of population, with no
industrial activity, mankind did not materially affect the balance
of nature. (The term balance of nature refers to the fact that all
of the waste products produced by one species XE "species" are food
for other species and the overall system is in a state of relative
equilibrium (slow evolutionary change).) The net production of
unreprocessed waste is effectively zero. The only significant
ecological change attributed to mankind over the millions of years
of his hunter-gatherer XE "hunter-gatherer" existence was the
extinction XE "extinction" of most large mammals (mammoths,
mastodons, giant camels, and the like) at the end of the last ice
age, about 10,000 years ago, and there is even doubt that mankind
accomplished that. When mankind began to use agriculture, about
10,000 years ago, a lot of forest XE "forest" was cleared, and many
local species XE "species" were exterminated. The rise of
civilization XE "civilization" was responsible, for example, for
the extermination of the black Atlas-mountain lion, and for the
elimination of lions in general from the area occupied by the Roman
Empire. Agricultural man could produce about 10 calories of food
energy XE "energy" for the expenditure of one calorie of food
energy. This meant that a single man could produce enough food for
his immediate family, and still have a surplus that could support a
nonagricultural urban civilization XE "civilization" . Conversion
of much of the land area to agriculture allowed the human
population to grow substantially, to the level of a few hundred
million at the time of the Roman Empire. Until about the year 1500,
the size of the human population did not change much. Overall,
agricultural yields were low perhaps 1/10 of current yields.
Another reason for lack of population growth was limited access to
energy XE "energy" resources XE "resources" . About 1500, however,
mankind started using coal instead of wood XE "wood" as a major
source of energy. The difficulties in extracting coal led to
technological advances such as the development of an efficient
steam engine. These developments enabled man to utilize much larger
amounts of energy. Technological development followed technological
development, leading ultimately to mans ability to produce much
larger amounts of food. The human population explosion XE
"population explosion" was on! The population increased to about a
billion in 1800, to two billion in 1925, three billion in 1960,
four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, and to six billion
today (1999). Human population is exploding at the rate of about 80
million a year, or a billion every twelve years. As discussed at
length in the references of the preceding chapter, mankinds large
population size and industrial activity are literally destroying
the ecological environment XE "environment" on which he depends for
his very existence. Since the human population explosion XE
"population explosion" threatens our existence, one would think
that this topic would receive more attention than any other.
Incredibly, this is not the case. Although a number of perceptive
books have been written on the subject, they represent a miniscule
proportion of all literature.
Impact overpopulation => nuke war
Overpopulation leads to proliferation of nuclear reactors and
nuclear war
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
The basic approach to the energy XE "energy" problem (i.e., the
depletion of fossil fuels XE "fossil fuel" in a few decades) by the
world government XE "world government" s is to ignore it. There is
much talk of alternatives to fossil fuels and fission XE "fission"
nuclear energy XE "nuclear energy" , such as solar energy XE "solar
energy" and fusion XE "fusion" energy, but it is just talk. Despite
much investment and research, alternative technologies have not
been developed. They are in the realm of science XE "science"
fiction or new age literature. Isaac Asimov conceived a universe
parallel to our own with which energy could be exchanged. Edgar
Cayce XE "Cayce, Edgar" describes crystal power XE "power" plants
in Atlantis that collected energy from the sun and other sources.
Alan F. Alford (Gods of the New Millennium XE "millennium" , Hodder
and Stoughton, London, 1996) describes pyramid-energy sources in
the ancient world. These alternatives are not too promising, to say
the least! Clearly, mankind is facing some difficult decisions.
Either reduce global population XE "population, global" size to a
level that is supportable by the annual budget of solar energy XE
"solar energy" , or use nuclear fission XE "fission" to generate
energy XE "energy" , thereby producing long-lasting radioactive XE
"radioactive" waste XE "radioactive waste" and the material used to
produce nuclear bombs. Since no steps are being taken by world
government XE "world government" s to accomplish the former (i.e.,
a human population of size that can be supported by solar energy),
it is pretty clear where we are headed: more people and more
nuclear energy XE "nuclear energy" . Human population will continue
to expand, and mankind will continue to use nuclear energy XE
"nuclear energy" and generate nuclear waste. Industrial man will
not be denied energy XE "energy" , or he will cease to exist. The
fact that nuclear reactor XE "reactor, nuclear" s generate
radioactive XE "radioactive" waste XE "radioactive waste" and waste
heat will not deter mankind in the least from using them. But the
fact that the most promising type of nuclear reactor XE "reactor"
the fast breeder reactor XE "fast breeder reactor" generates large
amounts of plutonium XE "plutonium" will have a significant Impact
on mans future XE "future" . The availability of large amounts of
plutonium significantly increases the likelihood of nuclear war XE
"nuclear war" .
Impact framework save biosphere first
The primary goal of population control should be to minimize the
chance of biosphere collapse all other factors are irrelevant
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical
Statistics, 1999(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation, June 6 with minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
The criterion of minimal regret specifies that if one of several
different possible decisions (courses of action) must be made, then
select the one that, no matter what happens, the regret is least.
"Regret" is loosely defined as the likelihood that mankind and the
planet's biodiversity XE "biodiversity" are destroyed. This
approach may result in a result quite different from the usual
approach of determining optimal population XE "population, optimal"
size. The objective in determining the optimal population size is
to identify the largest possible population that can achieve a
particular lifestyle, with the constraint that it be sustainable,
i.e., not cause so much damage to the environment XE "environment"
that it cannot continue indefinitely. The very serious drawback of
the optimal-population-size approach is that it does not address
the issue of how much stress the environment XE "environment" can
sustain without collapsing. It is simply hypothesized that, if
there is sufficient solar or nuclear energy XE "nuclear energy" and
land to support one billion people, that the environment can take
it, and will take it indefinitely. If the environment cannot take
it, the whole human race XE "race" is destroyed. From the viewpoint
of long-term survival XE "survival" of the human race, this is an
incredibly absurd approach. The approach of determining optimal
population XE "population, optimal" size is an attempt to maximize
the number of human beings on the planet, while completely ignoring
the possibility that mankinds economic activity may destroy all
life on the planet. It is a horribly flawed approach in which a
major possibility global destruction is permitted. The possibility
of planetary destruction is willfully recognized and accepted, and
conspiratorially ignored. In contrast, the minimal-regret approach
addresses the issue of planetary destruction head on, and takes it
fully into account.
Impact Oceans
The ocean is on the brink overfishing destroys resiliency,
outweighs any other alternate causalities
Greenpeace 2008
July, Pushed to the brink - The oceans and climate change
It is a matter of grave concern, therefore, that the oceans are
being systematically degraded and are in decline. Already subjected
to multiple human-induced stressors, most seriously overfishing,
the resilience of the oceans and their consequent ability to adapt
to change is decreasing. Yet it is this very resilience that
scientists argue is vital if the oceans are to survive the
onslaught of global climate change. Current threats The most
immediate and significant threat to the oceans is overfishing. The
demand for fish is exceeding the oceans ecological limits with
devastating impacts on marine ecosystems. Scientists are warning
that overfishing results in profound changes in our oceans, perhaps
permanently. Despite some alterations to the way fisheries are
managed, there is little ground for optimism; 77% of all fish
stocks are now either fully or over-exploited 1; fishermen are
bringing home smaller and smaller catches despite technological
advances; fish-size, abundance and genetic diversity has plummeted;
high-value species are being replaced by so-called trash fish; and
habitat degradation is widespread and increasing2. Destructive
practices and overfishing have diminished the seas ability to renew
its resources, with consequences for the more than one billion
people in the world who rely on fish as their primary source of
protein. The reality of modern fishing is an industrialisation that
far outstrips natures ability to replenish. Ships operate as
floating factories, containing fish processing and packing plants,
huge freezing systems and powerful engines to drag enormous fishing
gear through the oceans everything required to suck as much fish
out of the oceans as quickly as possible and to despatch it for
consumption. This wholesale damage and destruction is compounded by
many other stressors exerted on the ocean from pollution to
extraction. The cumulative result is that the resilience of the
oceans both individually and as a global network providing major
services to the planet is degenerating.
Overfishing overwhelms resiliency
CSM 08 (Christian Science Monitor, Moises Velasquez-Manoff,
Staff Writer, How Overfishing Can Alter An Entire Ecosystem, June
19,
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/06/19/how-overfishing-can-alter-an-ocean%E2%80%99s-entire-ecosystem/)
Scientists have documented versions of this story around the
world. Overfishing has shifted entire ecosystems with often
surprising, and occasionally unpleasant, results. In the tropics,
seaweed often dominates where coral once reigned. Around the world,
jellyfish and algae proliferate where finfish previously dominated.
With big predators often gone or greatly depleted, organisms lower
on the food web grow more abundant, reducing their own prey in
turn. Some say this is worrisome evidence of a greatly changed and
simplified marine ecosystem. Like investment portfolios with few
holdings, simple ecosystems are prone to collapse; and collapsed or
rearranged ecosystems dont necessarily provide what humans expect.
Increasingly mindful of marine ecosystems complexity and wary of
their collapse some people are calling for a holistic approach to
managing ecosystems, one that aims to manage for the health of the
entire system rather than that of a single stock. Just 4 percent of
the worlds oceans remains free from human impact, according to a
2008 study in the journal Science. Forty percent of this is heavily
impacted.
Overfishing is the largest factor in ocean destruction
Craig, 3 Associate professor of law, Indiana University School
of Law, Indianapolis, IN., 2003 (Robin Kundis, "Taking Steps Toward
Marine Wilderness Protection?" 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155, Winter)
Declines in fishing stocks and the economic chaos that results
when a fishery collapses have driven much of the interest in
restoring the oceans - or at least in restoring the fishing stocks.
Restoration efforts, however, depend on identifying the cause of
the degradation. Although anthropogenic stresses to the oceans are
many - pollution, destruction of habitat for coastal construction,
and global warming - scientists consistently identify overfishing
as the primary cause of [*163] both depleted fisheries stocks and
destruction of ecosystem biodiversity generally. n27 As for fishery
stocks, more than two-thirds of the commercially fished stocks
worldwide are currently either overfished or on the brink of
becoming overfished. n28 Moreover, many commercially important
stocks of marine species have suffered spectacular collapses,
leaving economic chaos in their wakes. Some famous examples include
salmon in the United States's Pacific Northwest; n29 cod in the
northeastern United States, eastern Canada, and Scandinavia; n30
whales throughout the world; n31 and sea turtles in the Caribbean
and Hawaii. n32 However, intensive fishing worldwide has also
affected marine ecosystems more generally. In the fished stocks,
"fish diminish in size and number or disappear altogether." n33
When so reduced, these species cannot properly perform their roles
in the ecosystems they inhabit, a condition known as ecological
extinction. n34 Most directly, the reduction in number and size of
commercially important species affects marine food webs: species
that the overfished species consumed tend to increase in number,
while species that consumed the overfished species tend to decrease
in number n35 or shift their diets. When hunters came close to
exterminating sea otters from the northern Pacific kelp forests,
for example, the orcas that had formerly preyed on otter turned
their attention to seals and sea lions, "which are in drastic
decline" as a result. n36Extinction
Craig, 3 Associate professor of law, Indiana University School
of Law, Indianapolis, IN., 2003 (Robin Kundis, "Taking Steps Toward
Marine Wilderness Protection?" 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155, Winter)
The world's oceans contain many resources and provide many
services that humans consider valuable. "Occupy[ing] more than
[seventy percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent]
of the biosphere," n17 oceans provide food; marketable goods such
as shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support
processes, including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and
weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and
economic, for millions of people worldwide. n18 Indeed, it is
difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity's
well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it
remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity,
and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create
and maintain our atmosphere and climate." n19 Ocean and coastal
ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty
billion dollars per year, worldwide. n20 In addition, many people
assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures,
viewing the world's seas as a common legacy to be passed on
relatively intact to future generations. n21 Traditionally,
land-bound humans have regarded the ocean as an inexhaustible
resource and have pursued consumptive and extractive uses of the
seas, such as fishing, with little thought of conservation. n22 In
the last two or three centuries, however, humanity has overstressed
the world's oceans, proving that the ocean's productivity is
limited. n23 Degradation of the marine environment is becoming
increasingly obvious: Scientists have mounting evidence of rapidly
accelerating declines in once-abundant populations of cod, haddock,
flounder, and scores of other [*162] fish species, as well as
mollusks, crustaceans, birds, and plants. They are alarmed at the
rapid rate of destruction of coral reefs, estuaries, and wetlands
and the sinister expansion of vast "dead zones" of water where life
has been choked away. More and more, the harm to marine
biodiversity can be traced not to natural events but to inadequate
policies. n24
Impact A-Life
A-life is coming to kills us all
A. It will be here in 9 yearsMulhall, is the author of Our
Molecular Future: How Nanotechnology, Robotics, Genetics, and
Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Our World, and co-author of
The Calcium Bomb: The Nanobacteria Link to Heart Disease and
Cancer. He managed a scientific environmental institute for many
years and co-founded one of the early South American institutes
devoted to recycling technology, 06Most students of artificial
intelligence are familiar with this forecast made by Vernor Vinge
in 19931: "Within thirty years, we will have the technological
means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human
era will be ended." That was thirteen years ago. Many proponents of
super-intelligence say we are on track for that deadline, due to
the rate of computing and software advances. Skeptics argue this is
nonsense and that we're still decades away from it. But fewer and
fewer argue that it won't happen by the end of this century. This
is because history has shown the acceleration of technology to be
exponential, as explained in well-known works by inventors such as
Ray Kurzweil and Hans Moravec, some of which are elucidated in this
volume of essays. A classic example of technology acceleration is
the mapping of the human genome, which achieved most of its
progress in the late stages of a multi-year project that critics
wrongly predicted would take decades.
B. Unlimited destruction
Bostrom, Philosophy professor Oxford and Director of the Oxford
Future of Humanity Institute, 06
The risks in developing superintelligence include the risk of
failure to give it the supergoal of philanthropy. One way in which
this could happen is that the creators of the superintelligence
decide to build it so that it serves only this select group of
humans, rather than humanity in general. Another way for it to
happen is that a well-meaning team of programmers make a big
mistake in designing its goal system. This could result, to return
to the earlier example, in a superintelligence whose top goal is
the manufacturing of paperclips, with the consequence that it
starts transforming first all of earth and then increasing portions
of space into paperclip manufacturing facilities. More subtly, it
could result in a superintelligence realizing a state of affairs
that we might now judge as desirable but which in fact turns out to
be a false utopia, in which things essential to human flourishing
have been irreversibly lost. We need to be careful about what we
wish for from a superintelligence, because we might get it.
Impact - Nanotech
Nanotech is a bad idea
A. An unregulated boom coming soon.
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology 1/24/04
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/what_we_believe/ January 21
04Molecular nanotechnology manufacturing will arrive suddenly,
perhaps within the next ten years, and almost certainly within the
next twenty. If it takes the world by surprise, we will not have
systems in place that can deal with it effectively. No single
organization or mindset can create a full and appropriate policyand
inappropriate policy will only make things worse. A combination of
separate policy efforts will get in each other's way, and the risks
will slip through the cracks.B. ends the universe
ETC 03
GRAY GOO What if nanobots start building chairs and dont stop?
The self-replicating and assembly processes could go haywire until
the world is annihilated by nanobots or their products. Gray Goo
refers to the obliteration of life that could result from the
accidental and uncontrollable spread of selfreplicating assemblers.
Drexler provides a vivid example of how quickly the damage could
pile up beginning with one rogue replicator. If the first
replicator could assemble a copy of itself in one thousand seconds,
the two replicators could then build two more in the next thousand
seconds, the four build another four, and the eight build another
eight. At the end of ten hours, there are not thirty-six new
replicators, but over 68 billion. In less than a day, they would
weigh a ton; in less than two days, they would outweigh the Earth;
in another four hours, they would exceed the mass of the Sun and
all the planets combined.
More Nanotech Impacts
Nanotech leads to planetary destruction via grey gooFreitas,
Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular
Manufacturing, 2001(Robert A. Jr., The Gray Goo Problem, March 20,
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0142.html)Perhaps
the earliest-recognized and best-known danger of molecular
nanotechnology is the risk that self-replicating nanorobots capable
of functioning autonomously in the natural environment could
quickly convert that natural environment (e.g., "biomass") into
replicas of themselves (e.g., "nanomass") on a global basis, a
scenario usually referred to as the "gray goo problem" but perhaps
more properly termed "global ecophagy." As Drexler first warned in
Engines of Creation [2]: "Plants" with "leaves" no more efficient
than today's solar cells could out-compete real plants, crowding
the biosphere with an inedible foliage. Tough omnivorous "bacteria"
could out-compete real bacteria: They could spread like blowing
pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to dust in a
matter of days. Dangerous replicators could easily be too tough,
small, and rapidly spreading to stop--at least if we make no
preparation. We have trouble enough controlling viruses and fruit
flies. Among the cognoscenti of nanotechnology, this threat has
become known as the "gray goo problem." Though masses of
uncontrolled replicators need not be gray or gooey, the term "gray
goo" emphasizes that replicators able to obliterate life might be
less inspiring than a single species of crabgrass. They might be
superior in an evolutionary sense, but this need not make them
valuable. The gray goo threat makes one thing perfectly clear: We
cannot afford certain kinds of accidents with replicating
assemblers. Gray goo would surely be a depressing ending to our
human adventure on Earth, far worse than mere fire or ice, and one
that could stem from a simple laboratory accident. Nanotech leads
to extinction destroys carbon making life impossible
Freitas, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular
Manufacturing, 2001(Robert A. Jr., The Gray Goo Problem, March 20,
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0142.html)However,
the primary ecophagic concern is that runaway nanorobotic
replicators or "replibots" will convert the entire surface
biosphere (the ecology of all living things on the surface of the
Earth) into alternative or artificial materials of some
type--especially, materials like themselves, e.g., more
self-replicating nanorobots. Since advanced nanorobots might be
constructed predominantly of carbon-rich diamondoid materials [4],
and since ~12% of all atoms in the human body (representative of
biology generally) are carbon atoms [6], or ~23% by weight, the
global biological carbon inventory may support the self-manufacture
of a final mass of replicating diamondoid nanorobots on the order
of ~0.23 Mbio, where Mbio is the total global biomass. Unlike
almost any other natural material, biomass can serve both as a
source of carbon and as a source of power for nanomachine
replication. Ecophagic nanorobots would regard living things as
environmental carbon accumulators, and biomass as a valuable ore to
be mined for carbon and energy. Of course, biosystems from which
all carbon has been extracted can no longer be alive but would
instead become lifeless chemical sludge.
Nanotech Possible
Freitas, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular
Manufacturing, 2001(Robert A. Jr., The Gray Goo Problem, March 20,
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0142.html)Traditional
diamondoid nanomachinery designs [4] have employed 8 primary
chemical elements, along with the associated atmospheric abundances
[46] of each element. (Silicon is present in air as particulate
dust which may be taken as ~28% Si for crustal rock [5], with a
global average dust concentration of ~0.0025 mg/m3). The
requirement for elements that are relatively rare in the atmosphere
greatly constrains the potential nanomass and growth rate of
airborne replicators. However, note that at least one of the
classical designs exceeds 91% CHON by weight. Although it would be
very difficult, it is at least theoretically possible that
replicators could be constructed almost solely of CHON, in which
case such devices could replicate relatively rapidly using only
atmospheric resources, powered by sunlight. A worldwide blanket of
airborne replicating dust or "aerovores" that blots out all
sunlight has been called the "gray dust" scenario [47]. (There have
already been numerous experimental aerial releases of recombinant
bacteria [48].)
Impact AcceleratorsThe next generation of accelerators will
create mini black holes that end the earth
Blodgett, Risk Evaluation Forum, 03 Recent developments in
physics suggest that the next generation of heavy ion colliders may
create mini black holes. (A large collider that will be thirty
times more powerful than current models is under construction at
CERN.) It is thought that mini black holes will dissipate via
Hawking radiation. But Hawking radiation has never been seen nor
tested. If Hawking radiation does not work, a mini black hole could
swallow the earth. This risk seems a classic case for being
careful, for what risk analysts call "the precautionary principle."
Unfortunately it appears that this principle is not yet being
applied.
1NC Posthumanism
The emergence of posthumans will result in a genocidal war with
WMD -- leads to extinction
Annas et al 2 (George, Utley Professor and Chair of Health Law
at Boston University School of Public Health, Lori Andrews,
Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent, and Rosario Isasi, Health Law and
Bioethics Fellow at Boston University School of Public Health,
American Journal of Law & Medicine, THE GENETICS REVOLUTION:
CONFLICTS, CHALLENGES AND CONUNDRA: ARTICLE: Protecting the
Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting
Cloning and Inheritable Alterations, 28 Am. J. L. and Med. 151,
L/N)Specifically, the argument is that cloning will inevitably lead
to attempts to modify the somatic cell nucleus not to create
genetic duplicates of existing people, but "better" children. 36 If
this attempt fails, that is the end of it. If it succeeds, however,
something like the scenario envisioned by Silver and others such as
Nancy Kress, 37 will unfold: a new species or subspecies of humans
will emerge. The new species, or "posthuman," will likely view the
old "normal" humans as inferior, even savages, and fit for slavery
or slaughter. The normals, on the other hand, may see the
posthumans as a threat and if they can, may engage in a preemptive
strike by killing the posthumans before they themselves are killed
or enslaved by them. It is ultimately this predictable potential
for genocide that makes species-altering experiments potential
weapons of mass destruction, and makes the unaccountable genetic
engineer a potential bioterrorist. It is also why cloning and
genetic modification is of species-wide concern and why an
international treaty to address it is appropriate. 38 Such a treaty
is necessary because existing laws on cloning and inheritable
genetic alterations, although often well-intentioned, have serious
limitations.
1NC Posthumanism
Posthumanism risks a destruction of genetic and cultural
diversity which is critical for human survival
Wang 1 (Andrea, J.D. Candidate at Colorado, Colorado Journal of
International Environmental Law and Policy, Regulating Human
Cloning Within an Environmental Human Rights Framework, 12 COLO. J.
INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 165, L/N)
Genetic diversity in humans helps to alleviate prejudice against
out-groups because there is no one standard of "normal." The
remainder of this section shows that if the eugenic ends discussed
above 161 come to fruition, we will become a more genetically
homogenized society. Because of the expense, cloning will be
utilized by the wealthy, dominant class and the stigmatizing effect
will be felt by poorer, marginalized groups. 162 Thus, an increase
in the use of cloning for genetic control will further solidify a
societal definition of "normalcy." As the class of "normal" becomes
more and more narrow, parents who belong to out-groups may even
choose, for the sake of their children, to have clones that will
fit the societal definition of normalcy. 163 "Individual choices
are not made in a social vacuum, and unless changes in social
attitudes keep pace with the proliferation of genetic tests, we can
anticipate that many future prospective parents, acting to avoid
misery for potential children, will have to bow to social attitudes
they [*186] reject and resent." 164 Examples of minority group
member parents who concede to the dominant culture because of
perceived advantages for their children have come up in other areas
of reproductive technology. For example, a black South African
woman (with a white husband) who could not conceive with her eggs,
requested that the egg donor be white. 165 She did so because she
felt that a white child would have a better life than would a child
of a mixed race. 166 The more this standard of "normal" is
reinforced, the greater the psychological injury to members of
out-groups. 167 In addition to the psychological injury of being
deemed inferior as a function of genetic traits, is the concomitant
discrimination at a societal level. Once certain traits are
identified as desirable from a utilitarian and aesthetic framework,
those who lack these traits will likely be discriminated against
both in educational and employment settings. 168 Scientist Judith
Swazey, in the context of "genetic health," has articulated this
concern: "some of the uses of genetics reflect, and reinforce, a
value system that contains an intolerance of "imperfection.'" 169
With a focus on an individual's genetic makeup, comes a shift to a
greater acceptance of notions of biological determinism. 170 This
theory provides the background for the justification of stereotype
use and the resulting discrimination. Nelkin and Tancredi warn of
the social power of biological information and speculate on its
misuse: "What is to be defined as normal or abnormal, able or
disabled, healthy or diseased? And whose yardstick should prevail?
... We risk increasing the number of people defined as
unemployable, uneducable, [*187] or uninsurable. We risk creating a
biological underclass." 171 2. Biodiversity - Socio-Cultural
Ramifications Genetic diversity, in addition to ameliorating the
marginalization and oppression of out-groups, also benefits humans
as a whole. Genetic diversity aids society through "endowing people
with physical and behavioral differences that enrich social
interactions, political debates, literary works and music." 172
Such a cultural exchange has been deemed necessary for human
survival: Each individual owes his survival and general well-being
partly to his own limited assortment of characters and partly to
the benefits received through cultural interchange with other
individuals representing other assortments... Every man in a sense
must become his brother's keeper, but the emphasis is on keeping
and expanding what both hold in common, not on converting one
brother to the ideal image held by the other. 173 The Rio
Declaration, which emphasizes the intrinsic value of biodiversity,
indicates the extent to which the international community
recognizes these "fruits" as essential to the enjoyment of the
right to life: The United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, ... working towards international agreements which
respect the interests of all and protect the integrity of the
global environmental and developmental system, recognizing the
integral and interdependent nature of the Earth, our home,
proclaims that: ... States should cooperate to strengthen
endogenous capacity-building for sustainable development by
impr