Malthus-Spark Impact Turn

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Documents

Malthus-Spark Impact Turn