1
Warming
Warming causes extinction.
Tickell 8 (Oliver Tickell, Environmental Researcher, 2008, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility
from the American Association for the Advacement of Science] told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the
climate science adviser to Defra. But the
idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global
warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean , in the immortal words that Chief Seattle
probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The
collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal
plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The
world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the
Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe
droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's
carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would
undoubtedly die.
Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King [Director of the Smith
School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford], who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that
we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing
significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and
the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than
carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years
to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes
of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions,
Many
scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming
caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.
and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes.
2
Urban Sprawl
Urban Sprawls leads to spatial, environmental, and political fragmentation, classism, and racism
Altinok et al 8 (Emrah Altınok and Hüseyin Cengiz, PhD in Urban Political Economy and Head of the Department of
City and Regional Planning at Yildiz Technical University, The Effects of Urban Sprawl on Spatial Fragmentation and
Social Segregation in Istanbul, http://www.isocarp.net/Data/case_studies/1302.pdf)
Limiting the adverse environmental effects of urban sprawl is included in the actions determined by OECD
regarding the problems related with urbanization and spatial development (OECD, 2001:18). Incorporation of
urban sprawl in the environmental strategies, goals and policies of OECD certainly implies that the environmental
side of the problem is absolutely important. However, it should be noted that the urban-spatial and social effects
of the phenomenon are already being widely debated in literature. In this paper mainly two facts related with the
social and spatial effects of urban sprawl are examined. These two are social segregation and spatial
fragmentation. Generally, it is observed that four aspects of fragmentation are emphasized in literature. First
issue is the spatial aspects of fragmentation. In this scope, discordance of urban land use and physical properties of
the space, spatial atomization and general lack of integration of the city are the main areas of debate. In particular,
increasing separation of functions like housing, business, recreation and shopping, over the urban space is defined
as an important 3mrah Altınok and Hüseyin Cengiz, The Effects of Urban Sprawl on Spatial Fragmentation and
Social Segregation in Istanbul, 44th ISOCARP Congress 2008 4 problem area. Second dimension of the
fragmentation is the environmental aspect. Here, particularly the disintegration and depletion of rural lands with
their natural assets due to use throughout the urban development process is discussed and accordingly
disintegration of agricultural and forest lands constitutes the main area of debate. This point can also be regarded
as the closest relation of the concept with urban sprawl. Third aspect is the political-administrative fragmentation.
Related with this issue, it is observed that are mostly the division of massive cities and metropolitan regions into
numerous administrative units and failing of local administrative units to introduce an integral approach for the
space with collaborative policies and strategies is deliberated. Furthermore, there are several opinions agreeing
that by representing a postmodern planning approach existence of multiple local administrative units will create a
boosting effect on the competition on private property and this effect will in turn perpetuate the urban sprawl 1
. Fourth aspect of fragmentation can be expressed as social fragmentation. Social fragmentation notion can be
said to be defined with an approach based on poverty and deprivation, otherness, being a minority member,
racial discrimination, social and classbased segregation concepts . At this point, it can be stated that the social
side of fragmentation is also closely related with the social segregation.
3
Iraq Civil War
Iraq civil war goes global
Ferguson ‘6
(Harvard Prof, 9/11, “The Next War of the World,”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/the_next_war_of_the_world.html)
What makes the escalating civil war in Iraq so disturbing is that it has the potential to spill over into neighboring
countries. The Iranian government is already taking more than a casual interest in the politics of post-Saddam Iraq. And yet Iran, with
its Sunni and Kurdish minorities, is no more homogeneous than Iraq. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria cannot be expected to
look on insouciantly if the Sunni minority in central Iraq begins to lose out to what may seem to be an Iranianbacked tyranny of the majority. The recent history of Lebanon offers a reminder that in the Middle East there is no such
thing as a contained civil war. Neighbors are always likely to take an unhealthy interest in any country with fissiparous
tendencies. The obvious conclusion is that a new "war of the world" may already be brewing in a region that, incredible though
it may seem, has yet to sate its appetite for violence. And the ramifications of such a Middle Eastern conflagration would
be truly global. Economically, the world would have to contend with oil at above $100 a barrel . Politically, those
countries in western Europe with substantial Muslim populations might also find themselves affected as sectarian tensions radiated
outward. Meanwhile, the ethnic war between Jews and Arabs in Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank shows no sign of abating. Is it
credible that the United States will remain unscathed if the Middle East erupts? Although such an outcome may seem to be a lowprobability, nightmare scenario, it is already more likely than the scenario of enduring peace in the region. If the history of the twentieth
century is any guide, only economic stabilization and a credible reassertion of U.S. authority are likely to halt the drift toward chaos.
Neither is a likely prospect. On the contrary, the speed with which responsibility for security in Iraq is being handed over to the
predominantly Shiite and Kurdish security forces may accelerate the descent into internecine strife. Significantly, the
audio statement released by Osama bin Laden in June excoriated not only the American-led "occupiers" of Iraq but also "certain sectors
of the Iraqi people -- those who refused [neutrality] and stood to fight on the side of the crusaders." His allusions to "rejectionists,"
"traitors," and "agents of the Americans" were clearly intended to justify al Qaeda's policy of targeting Iraq's Shiites. The war of the
worlds that H. G. Wells imagined never came to pass. But a war of the world did. The sobering possibility we urgently need to confront is
that another global conflict is brewing today -- centered not on Poland or Manchuria, but more likely on Palestine and
Mesopotamia.
4
Hegemony
U.S. hegemonic decline causes global great-power war, collapses trade and spreads economic nationalism and
protectionism
Zhang & Shi 11 – Yuhan Zhang, researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Lin Shi,
Columbia University, independent consultant for the Eurasia Group and consultant for the World Bank,
January 22, 2011, “America’s decline: A harbinger of conflict and rivalry,” East Asia Forum, online:
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/01/22/americas-decline-a-harbinger-of-conflict-and-rivalry/
Over the past two decades, no other state has had the ability to seriously challenge the US military. Under
these circumstances, motivated by both opportunity and fear, many actors have bandwagoned with US
hegemony and accepted a subordinate role. Canada, most of Western Europe, India, Japan, South Korea,
Australia, Singapore and the Philippines have all joined the US, creating a status quo that has tended to mute
great power conflicts.
However, as the hegemony that drew these powers together withers, so will the pulling power behind the US
alliance. The result will be an international order where power is more diffuse, American interests and
influence can be more readily challenged, and conflicts or wars may be harder to avoid.
As history attests, power decline and redistribution result in military confrontation. For example, in the late
19th century America’s emergence as a regional power saw it launch its first overseas war of conquest
towards Spain. By the turn of the 20th century, accompanying the increase in US power and waning of British
power, the American Navy had begun to challenge the notion that Britain ‘rules the waves.’ Such a notion
would eventually see the US attain the status of sole guardians of the Western Hemisphere’s security to
become the order-creating Leviathan shaping the international system with democracy and rule of law.
Defining this US-centred system are three key characteristics: enforcement of property rights, constraints on
the actions of powerful individuals and groups and some degree of equal opportunities for broad segments of
society. As a result of such political stability, free markets, liberal trade and flexible financial mechanisms
have appeared. And, with this, many countries have sought opportunities to enter this system, proliferating
stable and cooperative relations.
However, what will happen to these advances as America’s influence declines? Given that America’s
authority, although sullied at times, has benefited people across much of Latin America, Central and Eastern
Europe, the Balkans, as well as parts of Africa and, quite extensively, Asia, the answer to this question could
affect global society in a profoundly detrimental way.
Public imagination and academia have anticipated that a post-hegemonic world would return to the problems
of the 1930s: regional blocs, trade conflicts and strategic rivalry. Furthermore, multilateral institutions such
as the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO might give way to regional organisations.
For example, Europe and East Asia would each step forward to fill the vacuum left by Washington’s withering
leadership to pursue their own visions of regional political and economic orders. Free markets would become
more politicised — and, well, less free — and major powers would compete for supremacy.
Additionally, such power plays have historically possessed a zero-sum element. In the late 1960s and 1970s,
US economic power declined relative to the rise of the Japanese and Western European economies, with the
US dollar also becoming less attractive. And, as American power eroded, so did international regimes (such as
the Bretton Woods System in 1973).
A world without American hegemony is one where great power wars re-emerge, the liberal international
system is supplanted by an authoritarian one, and trade protectionism devolves into restrictive, antiglobalisation barriers. This, at least, is one possibility we can forecast in a future that will inevitably be devoid
of unrivalled US primacy.
5
Economic Collapse
Global economic crisis causes nuclear war
Mead 9 – Walter Russell Mead, the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at
the Council on Foreign Relations, 2-4, “Only Makes You Stronger,” The New Republic,
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-854292e83915f5f8&p=2
If current market turmoil seriously damaged the performance and prospects of India and China, the current crisis could join the Great
Depression in the list of economic events that changed history, even if the recessions in the West are relatively short and mild. The
United States should stand ready to assist Chinese and Indian financial authorities on an emergency basis--and work very hard to help
both countries escape or at least weather any economic downturn. It may test the political will of the Obama administration, but the
United States must avoid a protectionist response to the economic slowdown. U.S. moves to limit market access for Chinese and Indian
producers could poison relations for years. For billions of people in nuclear-armed countries to emerge from this
crisis believing either that the United States was indifferent to their well-being or that it had profited from
their distress could damage U.S. foreign policy far more severely than any mistake made by George W. Bush.
It's not just the great powers whose trajectories have been affected by the crash. Lesser powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran also face new constraints. The crisis has strengthened the
U.S. position in the Middle East as falling oil prices reduce Iranian influence and increase the dependence of the oil sheikdoms on U.S. protection. Success in Iraq--however late,
however undeserved, however limited--had already improved the Obama administration's prospects for addressing regional crises. Now, the collapse in oil prices has put the Iranian
regime on the defensive. The annual inflation rate rose above 29 percent last September, up from about 17 percent in 2007, according to Iran's Bank Markazi. Economists forecast that
Iran's real GDP growth will drop markedly in the coming months as stagnating oil revenues and the continued global economic downturn force the government to rein in its
expansionary fiscal policy.
All this has weakened Ahmadinejad at home and Iran abroad. Iranian officials must balance the relative merits of support for allies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria against domestic
needs, while international sanctions and other diplomatic sticks have been made more painful and Western carrots (like trade opportunities) have become more attractive.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other oil states have become more dependent on the United States for protection against Iran, and they have fewer resources to fund religious extremism
as they use diminished oil revenues to support basic domestic spending and development goals. None of this makes the Middle East an easy target for U.S. diplomacy, but thanks in
part to the economic crisis, the incoming administration has the chance to try some new ideas and to enter negotiations with Iran (and Syria) from a position of enhanced strength.
Every crisis is different, but there seem to be reasons why, over time, financial crises on balance reinforce rather than undermine the world position of the leading capitalist countries.
Since capitalism first emerged in early modern Europe, the ability to exploit the advantages of rapid economic development has been a key factor in international competition.
Countries that can encourage--or at least allow and sustain--the change, dislocation, upheaval, and pain that capitalism often involves, while providing their tumultuous market
societies with appropriate regulatory and legal frameworks, grow swiftly. They produce cutting-edge technologies that translate into military and economic power. They are able to
invest in education, making their workforces ever more productive. They typically develop liberal political institutions and cultural norms that value, or at least tolerate, dissent and
that allow people of different political and religious viewpoints to collaborate on a vast social project of modernization--and to maintain political stability in the face of accelerating
social and economic change. The vast productive capacity of leading capitalist powers gives them the ability to project influence around the world and, to some degree, to remake the
world to suit their own interests and preferences. This is what the United Kingdom and the United States have done in past centuries, and what other capitalist powers like France,
Germany, and Japan have done to a lesser extent. In these countries, the social forces that support the idea of a competitive market economy within an appropriately liberal legal and
political framework are relatively strong.
But, in many other countries where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case. On either side of the Atlantic, for example, the Latin world is often drawn to anticapitalist movements and rulers on both the right and the left. Russia, too, has never really taken to capitalism and liberal society--whether during the time of the czars, the
commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so signally failed to build a stable, open system of liberal democratic capitalism even as many former Warsaw Pact nations were making
rapid transitions. Partly as a result of these internal cultural pressures, and partly because, in much of the world, capitalism has appeared as an unwelcome interloper, imposed by
foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign rather than domestic interests and preferences, many countries are only half-heartedly capitalist. When crisis strikes, they are quick to decide
that capitalism is a failure and look for alternatives.
So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners
as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the
power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world.
Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists
who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these
societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier
societies.
As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to
suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial
crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again.
None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist
great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal
part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war.
The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American
Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the
list of financial crises.
Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public
opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching
toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born?
The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
6
US-Russia War
A US-Russian war is the only scenario for extinction. Such existential risks outweigh diseases, world wars, and
smaller nuclear wars.
Bostrum 02. (Dr. Nick, Professor of Philosophy and Global Studies at YALE, "Existential Risks:
Analyzing
Human
Extinction
Scenarios
and
Related
Hazards,"
3-8-02,
http://www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html)
Risks in this sixth category are a recent phenomenon. This is part of the reason why it is useful to distinguish them from other risks. We
have
not evolved mechanisms, either biologically or culturally, for managing such risks. Our intuitions and coping
strategies have been shaped by our long experience with risks such as dangerous animals, hostile individuals or tribes,
poisonous foods, automobile accidents, Chernobyl, Bhopal, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, draughts, World War I, World War
II, epidemics of influenza, smallpox, black plague, and AIDS. These types of disasters have occurred many times and our cultural
attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards. But tragic as such events are in the big picture
of things – from the perspective of humankind as a whole – even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on
the surface of the great sea of life. They haven't significantly affected the total amount of human suffering or
happiness or determined the long-term fate of our species.
With the exception of a species-destroying comet or asteroid
impact (an extremely rare occurrence), there were probably no significant existential risks in human history until the midtwentieth century, and certainly none that it was within our power to do something about.
The first manmade existential risk was the inaugural detonation of an atomic bomb. At the time, there was some concern that the explosion might
start a runaway chain-reaction by "igniting" the atmosphere. Although we now know that such an outcome was physically impossible, it qualifies
as an existential risk that was present at the time. For there to be a risk, given the knowledge and understanding available, it
suffices that there is some subjective probability of an adverse outcome, even if it later turns out that objectively
there was no chance of something bad happening. If we don't know whether something is objectively risky or not,
then it is risky in the subjective sense. The subjective sense is of course what we must base our decisions on. [2] At any
given time we must use our best current subjective estimate of what the objective risk factors are.[3]
A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. An
all-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been
persistent enough to qualify as global and terminal. There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the
information available at the time that a nuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or
permanently destroy human civilization.[4] Russia and the US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a
future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear
arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and Pakistan for instance, is not an existential
risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind's potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal
risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddon and comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes
to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.
The special nature of the challenges posed by existential risks is illustrated by the following points:
·
Our approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error. There is no opportunity to learn from errors .
The reactive approach – see what happens, limit damages, and learn from experience – is unworkable. Rather, we must take a proactive approach.
This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and
economic) of such actions.
·
We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions, moral norms, social attitudes or national security policies that developed from our experience
with managing other sorts of risks. Existential risks are a different kind of beast. We might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should
simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters.[5] Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat.
·
Reductions in existential risks are global public goods [13] and may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14]. Existential risks
are a menace for everybody and may require acting on the international plane. Respect for national sovereignty is
not a legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against a major existential risk.
·
If we take into account the welfare of future generations, the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by
another factor, the size of which depends on whether and how much we discount future benefits [15,16].
7
US-China War
China war escalates and goes nuclear
Lee J. Hunkovic -- professor at American Military University, (“The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict Possible
Futures of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America”, American Military
University, 2009, p.54)
A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict
and a third world war, therefore, many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a
conflict, including Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the
war, as well as all other countries in the world that participate in the global economy, in which the United States and China are the
two most dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility exists that they
could then plan to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East and Southeast Asia,
as well as the Pacific and even into India, which could in turn create an international standoff and
deployment of military forces to contain the threat. In any case, if China and the United States engage in a
full-scale conflict, there are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily
affected by it. However, China, Taiwan and United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine
its eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered in this study.
8
Obama Credibility
Obama credibility solves multiple scenarios for war.
Dr. Victor Davis Hanson – Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at Hoover Institution,
Stanford University, (Resistnet.com, December 7, 2009, “Change, Weakness, Disaster, Obama: Answers
from Victor Davis Hanson,” Interview with the Oregon Patriots, pg.
http://www.resistnet.com/group/oregon/forum/topics/change-weakness-disaster-obama/showLastReply)
BC: Are we currently sending a message of weakness to our foes and allies? Can anything good result from President Obama’s
marked submissiveness before the world?
Dr. Hanson: Obama is one bow and one apology away from a circus. The world can understand a kowtow gaffe to some Saudi royals,
but not as part of a deliberate pattern. Ditto the mea culpas.
Much of diplomacy rests on public perceptions, however
We are now in a great waiting game, as regional hegemons, wishing to redraw the existing
landscape — whether China, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Syria, etc. — are just waiting to
see who’s going to be the first to try Obama — and whether Obama really will be as tenuous as they expect.
If he slips once, it will be 1979 redux, when we saw the rise of radical Islam, the Iranian hostage mess, the
communist inroads in Central America, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, etc.
BC: With what country then — Venezuela, Russia, Iran, etc. — do you believe his global repositioning will cause the most
damage?
trivial.
Dr. Hanson: I think all three. I would expect, in the next three years, Iran to get the bomb and begin to threaten ever so insidiously its
Gulf neighborhood;
Venezuela will probably cook up some scheme to do a punitive border raid into Colombia to apprise
Russia will continue its energy bullying of Eastern Europe,
while insidiously pressuring autonomous former republics to get back in line with some sort of new Russian autocratic
commonwealth. There’s an outside shot that North Korea might do something really stupid near the 38th parallel
and China will ratchet up the pressure on Taiwan. India’s borders with both Pakistan and China will heat
up. I think we got off the back of the tiger and now no one quite knows whom it will bite or when.
South America that U.S. friendship and values are liabilities; and
9
NASA Credibility
NASA credibility independently solves war
Dr. John M. Logsdon - Director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, Research
professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University (GWU , 2009, “Human
Space Flight and National Power,” High Frontier, March 2007, Volume 3 Number 2, pg.
http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/DrLogsdon_HF_Article.pdf)
This question has been eloquently addressed by the current NASA administrator, Dr. Michael D. Griffin:
“The most enlightened, yet least discussed, aspect of national security involves being the kind of nation
and, doing the kinds of things, that inspire others to want to cooperate as allies and partners rather than to
be adversaries. And in my opinion, this is NASA’s greatest contribution to our Nation’s future in the
world.” He added,
Today, and yet not for much longer, America’s ability to lead a robust program of human and robotic
exploration sets us above and apart from all others. It offers the perfect venue for leadership in an alliance
of great nations, and provides the perfect opportunity to bind others to us as partners in the pursuit of
common dreams. And if we are a nation joined with others in pursuit of such goals, all will be less likely
to pursue conflict in other arenas.
Griffin went even further in his analysis: “Imagine if you will a world of some future time—whether it be
2020 or 2040 or whenever—when some other nations or alliances are capable of reaching and exploring
the Moon, or voyaging to Mars, and the United States cannot and does not. Is it even conceivable that in
such a world America would still be regarded as a leader among nations, never mind the leader?” He
asked “Are we willing to accept those consequences?”12 These remarks have been quoted at some length
because they sum up the core argument of this essay—that human space flight, well conceived and well
executed, is a valuable source of soft power for the United States. Whether or not direct military or
economic benefits flow from having the ability to send people to orbit and beyond, human space flight
will continue to make an important contribution to having the rest of the world see the United States as a
great country. Pg. 13
10
Mars Colonization
Colonization of Mars is key to preserve human life – it mitigates nuclear and biological war, natural disasters,
warming, and ecological collapse: means the aff. outweighs even in a worst case scenario
Nicholas K. Geranios – staff writer at the associated press (MSNBC, November 15, 2010, “Scientists propose oneway trips to Mars”, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40194872/ns/technology_and_sciencespace/t/scientists-propose-one-way-trips-mars/)
For anyone who’s ever felt the urge to get away from it all, Dirk Schulze-Makuch and Paul Davies have a
proposal: a one-way ticket to Mars with no possibility of return. You and a stranger would board a
spacecraft and travel for six months — absorbing levels of radiation so high that your reproductive organs
would be destroyed — before arriving at your new planet. There you would live in an ice cave, or perhaps
inside a biosphere adjoining a cave, for the rest of your life (which, incidentally, would be 20 years or
less). Two other Earth ex-pats would arrive in their own craft, and together the four of you would prepare
a home for 150 more people, most of whom would arrive decades after your death. Sound enticing? It
does to many people, say Mr. Davies, of Arizona State University, and Mr. Schulze-Makuch, of
Washington State University. The two scientists lay out their plan in a paper titled “To Boldly Go: A
One-Way Human Mission to Mars,” in the October-November issue of the Journal of Cosmology. “A
human mission to Mars is technologically feasible,” the men write, “but hugely expensive.” They say that
the price tag of such an undertaking could be slashed by as much as 80 percent by doing away with the
hassle of worrying about getting the astronauts back to Earth. Drastically reducing the cost could make
the colonization of Mars a near-term possibility. “We are a vulnerable species living in a part of the
galaxy where cosmic events such as major asteroid and comet impacts and supernova explosions pose a
significant threat to life on Earth, especially to human life,” the scientists write. ”Global pandemics,
nuclear or biological warfare, runaway global warming, sudden ecological collapse and supervolcanoes”
threaten the existence of humankind. “Colonization of other worlds is a must if the human species is to
survive for the long term,” they write. Settlements on Earth’s moon or on asteroids could also be feasible,
the scientists say, but the Red Planet is the best candidate for colonization. It is relatively close to Earth
and it may have ice caves, which could supply the colonists with water and oxygen. After pitching their
proposal in lectures and at conferences, Mr. Davies and Mr. Schulze-Makuc say they have found no
shortage of people who say they would volunteer for a one-way mission, “both for reasons of scientific
curiosity and in a spirit of adventure and human destiny.” The Martian colonists “would remain in
constant contact with Earth via normal channels such as email, radio and video links,” the scientists say,
so you could stay in touch with the relatives, check Facebook, and yes, read Tweed. So what about it?
Would you volunteer? Why or why not? If not, is there someone else you’d like to send to Mars? Let us
know in the comments below.
11
Deterrence
Nuclear deterrence is key to solve multiple scenarios for extinction
Mark Schneider -- senior Analyst with the National Institute for Public Policy, Ph.D in history at the University
of Southern California and JD from George Washington University, former senior officer in the DoD in positions
relating to arms control and nuclear weapons policy, (July 20 08 , “The Future of the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent,”
Comparative Strategy 27.4, Ebsco)
Today, the United States, the world's only superpower with global responsibilities, is the only nuclear
weapons state that is seriously debating (admittedly largely inside the beltway) about whether the United
States should retain a nuclear deterrent. By contrast, the British Labour Government has decided to retain
and modernize its nuclear deterrent. In every other nuclear weapons state—Russia, China, France, India,
Pakistan, and allegedly Israel—there is general acceptance of the need for a nuclear deterrent and its
modernization. Amazingly, the United States is the only nuclear-armed nation that is not modernizing its
nuclear deterrent. Distinguished former leaders such a George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A.
Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, despite the manifest failure of arms control to constrain the weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) threat, call for “A world free of Nuclear Weapons” because “… the United States can
address almost all of its military objectives by non-nuclear means.”1 This view ignores the monumental
verification problems involved and the military implication of different types of WMD—chemical and
biological (CBW) attack, including the advanced agents now available to potential enemies of the United
States and our allies. A U.S. nuclear deterrent is necessary to address existing threats to the very survival
of the U.S., its allies, and its armed forces if they are subject to an attack using WMD. As former
Secretary of Defense Harold Brown and former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch wrote in The
Wall Street Journal, “However, the goal, even the aspirational goal, of eliminating all nuclear weapons is
counterproductive. It will not advance substantive progress on nonproliferation; and it risks
compromising the value that nuclear weapons continue to contribute, through deterrence, to U.S. security
and international stability.”2 Why can't the United States deter WMD (nuclear, chemical, biological)
attack with conventional weapons? The short answer is that conventional weapons can't deter a WMD
attack because of their minuscule destructiveness compared with WMD, which are thousands to millions
of times as lethal as conventional weapons. Existing WMD can kill millions to hundreds of millions of
people in an hour, and there are national leaders who would use them against us if all they had to fear was
a conventional response. The threat of nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, as assessed by a
Congressional Commission in 2004, is so severe that one or at most a handful of EMP attacks could
demolish industrial civilization in the United States.3 The view that conventional weapons can replace
nuclear weapons in deterrence or warfighting against a state using WMD is not technically supportable.
Precision-guided conventional weapons are fine substitutes for non-precision weapons, but they do not
remotely possess the lethality of WMD warheads. Moreover, their effectiveness in some cases can be
seriously degraded by counter-measures and they clearly are not effective against most hard and deeply
buried facilities that are associated with WMD threats and national leadership protection. If deterrence of
WMD attack fails, conventional weapons are unlikely to terminate adversary WMD attacks upon us and
our allies or to deter escalation. Are there actual existing threats to the survival of the United States? The
answer is unquestionably “yes.” Both Russia and China have the nuclear potential to destroy the United
States (and our allies) and are modernizing their forces with the objective of targeting the United States.4
China is also increasing the number of its nuclear weapons.5 Russia is moving away from democracy,
and China remains a Communist dictatorship. A number of hostile dictatorships—North Korea, Iran, and
possibly Syria—have or are developing longer-range missiles, as well as chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons.6 They already have the ability to launch devastating WMD attacks against our allies
and our forward deployed forces, and in time may acquire capabilities against the United States. Iran will
probably have nuclear weapons within approximately 2 to 5 years.7 The United States already faces a
chemical and biological weapons threat despite arms control prohibitions. Due to arms control, we do not
have an in-kind deterrent. Both Iranian and Syria acquisition of nuclear weapons could be affected by
sales from North Korea, which have been reported in the press.8
12
Space Race
Space arms race leads to accidental nuclear war
Sherwood Ross -- reporter for the Chicago Daily News, (“Space Race Increasing Risk of Nuclear War,” Atlantic Free Press, Saturday, April 09,
2009, pg. http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/8948-space-race-increasing-risk-of-nuclear-war.html)
An unchecked race to militarize space is underway that is “increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear
war while shortening the time for sanity and diplomacy to come into play to halt crises,” an authority on
space warfare says.
By 2025, the space capabilities of the leading space powers---the U.S., Russia, India and China---will be roughly equal “due to
information sharing in a globalized economy,” says noted space researcher Matt Hoey in an exclusive interview. Hoey is
international military space technology forecaster who provides analysis on issues related to technology proliferation and arms
control. He is also a former senior research associate at the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies and has contributed to
publications such as the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and the Space Review. Through their military and commercial research
facilities, the world’s military powers are pursuing development of a reusable, unmanned, hypersonic, space-strike delivery platform
that “would permit rapid precision strikes worldwide in 120 minutes or less,” Hoey said. The strike platform could loiter in nearspace or in low earth orbit and assault terrestrial targets at incredible speed “with a nuclear or conventional payload and then return
to any base in the world on demand,” he explained. While “there will not be a dedicated ‘space war’ in our lifetimes or our
children’s,” Hoey said, “we are likely to witness acts of space warfare being committed…in concert with other theatres of combat”
on land, sea, and air and cyber space.”
Hoey said his research analysis suggests: “Back and forth escalation regarding military space capabilities would fuel
each nation’s respective space industries as would commercial space races driven by national pride.” “If
these systems are deployed in space we will be tipping the nuclear balance between nations that has
ensured the peace for decades,” Hoey continued. “The military space race will serve the defense industry
much like the cold war and this is already being witnessed in relation to missile defense systems.” Hoey
pointed out the arms control community “is still trying to put the nuclear genie from decades ago back in
the bottle” and adds “once this new genie(space war) is out it is not going back in anytime soon, either.”
The five treaties governing space “are highly outdated,” Hoey said, notably the milestone “Outer Space Treaty” of 1967.
Theoretically, the U.S. is also bound by The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 that declares our “activities in space
should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.” (Rep. Dennis Kucinich(D-Ohio), in introducing a bill to ban
the weaponization of space, charged the Bush administration with breaking with that policy by “putting weapons in outer space to
give the U.S. the power to control the world.” Kucinich charged “the Air Force is seeking permission to put both offensive and
defensive weapons in space.”) Hoey said the research community is expecting space warfare systems to come from the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA) and the Air Force Research Laboratories (AFRL). But instead of doing straight
military R&D in-house, the Pentagon is funding civilian research that has dual-purpose use capabilities---civilian applications as
well as military. Because military space race technologies are the same as those needed to explore the heavens, service the
international space station and defend against threats from near earth objects, the civilian-military partnerships “present the most
challenging dilemma for the arms control community,” Hoey said. That’s because arms control proponents cannot object to their
military applications without also opposing “technologies that benefit mankind.” And he warned this will continue to be the case as
long as existing treaties fail to differentiate between commercial and military space technology. Because their overlap is
“overwhelming,” Hoey noted, in that “systems that destroy can also create and facilitate discoveries,” it behooves the international
arms control community to act before our military and commercial industries become “inextricably integrated with military space
systems and unable to extract themselves.” Hoey said the defense community is actively scouting students still enrolled in high
school who have demonstrated a talent in aerospace, cryptology and computer security for military research, “in an attempt to
compete with emerging science and technology rivals such as China and India.” This would place future generations who dream of
discoveries on a fast track towards the defense industry, Hoey said, even if they land jobs in the private sector. As dual-usage
progresses, far more space technology roads will lead to careers that contribute to the development space
warfare-enabling technologies.
Companies engaged in nanotechnology, robotics and Artificial Intelligence are also being wooed by the military with fat checks,
Hoey said. “These (space exploration and space warfare) systems are being developed through multi-tiered collaborations that
include NASA, the Defense Department, universities, big defense contractors and small space start- ups. “The work force
consists of military scientists and engineers, students, scientists, and even foreign nationals” ultimately
enabling technology proliferation globally.
For an arms control community that is focusing primarily on banning specific space weapons currently in
development, nearing deployment, and in some cases already deployed, efforts should also be focused
towards lobbying the international community to begin establishing rules of the road that differentiate
between peaceful commercial space technologies and destructive military space applications before the
lines between the two are irreversibly blurred, Hoey urged. By doing so, “next generation space warfare
systems and space security threats can, as a result, be prevented long before they have a chance to further
undermine peace in outer space and increase the probability of nuclear war,” he said.
13
African War
African war escalates and draws in great powers.
Deutsch 02 (Jeffrey, founder of the Rabid Tiger Project, a political risk consulting and related research firm, 11-18,
http://www.rabidtigers.com/rtn/newsletterv2n9.html)
The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars in the Congo
(the country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone, and domestic instability in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other
countries, as well as occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in part to "national" borders that cut across tribal ones) turn
into a
really nasty stew. We've got all too many rabid tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the button rather than
risk being seen as wishy-washy in the face of a mortal threat and overthrown. Geopolitically speaking, Africa is open range. Very few
countries in Africa are beholden to any particular power. South Africa is a major exception in this respect - not to mention in that she also
probably already has the Bomb. Thus, outside
powers can more easily find client states there than, say,
in Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or Asia where many of the countries (China, India, Japan) are
powers unto themselves and don't need any "help," thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside
involvement very quickly. Of course, a proxy war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But an African
nuclear strike can ignite a much broader conflagration, if the other powers are interested in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in the
first place have been facilitated by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an ocean of troubled waters, and some
people love to go fishing.
14
Biodiversity
Biodiversity solves extinction.
Tonn 07 (Bruce E, Urban Planning Prof @ Tennessee, November, Futures v. 39, no. 9, “Futures Sustainability”, Lexis)
The first principle is the most important because earth-life is needed to support earth-life. Ecosystems are composed of
countless species that are mutually dependent upon each other for nutrients directly as food or as by-products of earthlife (e.g., as carbon dioxide and oxygen). If the biodiversity of an ecosystem is substantially compromised, then the entire system
could collapse due to destructive negative nutrient cycle feedback effects. If enough ecosystems collapse worldwide, then the
cascading impact on global nutrient cycles could lead to catastrophic species extinction . Thus, to ensure the survival of
earth-life into the distant future the earth's biodiversity must be protected.
15
Growth Good
Collapse causes global transition wars.
Panzner 8 (Michael J. Panzner, faculty at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency
markets who has worked in New York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and JPMorgan Chase, 2008,
“Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future from Economic Collapse”, Revised and Updated Edition, p. 136-138)
Many will wonder whether the United States might renege on some of its fi nancial obligations or even declare an outright default on its
once AAA securities. Likely adding to a widespread sense of panic will be the exodus from an array of global fi at currencies
into gold, silver, property, and other tangible assets, which can hold their value in a world of government fi nances run amok. Needless to
say, systemic fi nancial pressures and domino-like bank failures will make preservation of capital the utmost concern. Rising
angst will also wreak havoc with links among markets, fi nancial systems, economies, and countries. Many people could fi nd
themselves subject to stricter government controls or even fi nd avenues closed off as a result of attempts to stem contagion effects. The
widespread urge to withdraw will feed rising xenophobia, already infl amed by illegal immigration, unfair trade practices,
and leaking borders. Playing to populist sentiment, politicians around the country will respond enthusiastically to calls for
restrictions on foreigners. This will further feed a brain drain, as scientists, students, and other temporary visa holders are left
with little choice but to uproot and go elsewhere, further sapping America’s economic resiliency. Continuing calls for curbs on
the fl ow of fi nance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth protectionist legislation like
the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat economic responses,
which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn into a prolonged and devastating global disaster. But if
history is any guide, those lessons will have been long forgotten during the next collapse . Eventually, fed by a mood of
desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade, fi nance, investment, and immigration will almost certainly
intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and
lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or
sending funds to other countries exceedingly diffi cult. As desperate offi cials try to limit the fallout from decades of illconceived, corrupt, and reckless policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange. Foreign individuals and
companies seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the cheap
thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to
ripple across economies and markets, disrupting global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course,
continue to undermine business confi - dence and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that
transmits systemic fi nancial pressures across markets through arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that
allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise facilitates
unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly. The rise in isolationism and
protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas,
and other key commodities as well as factors of production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly
nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to
secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply. Disputes
over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural resources will become more commonplace . Around
the world, such tensions will give rise to fullscale
military encounters, often with minimal provocation. In some instances,
economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for confl icts that stem from cultural and religious differences .
Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling frustration and populist
sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology and the waning threat of American retribution,
terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random
violence to a whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and interdictions by rogue
nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency. China will likely assume an
increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the
Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into a growing number of
confl icts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an
“intense confrontation” between the United States and China is “inevitable” at some point. More than a few disputes will turn
out to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences will be transformed from wars of words to
battles soaked in blood. Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human
instincts and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using
jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up confl icts between
Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world
16
Liberty
Value to life outweighs everything – we must reject every violation of freedom with undying spirit
Petro 74. (Sylvester, Prof of Law @ Wake Forest U, University of Toledo Law Review, pg. 4801)
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway - "I believe in only one thing: liberty." And it is
always well to bear in mind David Hume's observation: " It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at
once." Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there
have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end
of all human aspiration . Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a
supreme value and the Proper ordering; principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material
welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying
spirit.
17
Terrorism
Terrorism risks extinction
Alexander 03. (Yonah, Prof and Director of Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, Washington Times,
August 28, lexis)
Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in terms of
conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current
and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological, chemical,
radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional and global security
concerns. Two myths in particular must be debunked immediately if an effective counterterrorism "best practices" strategy can be
developed [e.g., strengthening international cooperation]. The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatly reduced, if not eliminated
completely, provided the root causes of conflicts - political, social and economic - are addressed. The conventional illusion is that
terrorism must be justified by oppressed people seeking to achieve their goals and consequently the argument advanced by "freedom
fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty and I will give you death," should be tolerated if not glorified. This traditional rationalization of
"sacred" violence often conceals that the real purpose of terrorist groups is to gain political power through the barrel of the gun, in
violation of fundamental human rights of the noncombatant segment of societies. For instance, Palestinians religious movements [e.g.,
Hamas, Islamic Jihad] and secular entities [such as Fatah's Tanzim and Aqsa Martyr Brigades]] wish not only to resolve national
grievances [such as Jewish settlements, right of return, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewish state. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's
international network not only opposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, but its stated objective is to
"unite all Muslims and establish a government that follows the rule of the Caliphs." The second myth is that strong action against terrorist
infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command and control] will only increase
terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and military retaliation inevitably will fuel more brutal acts of violent
revenge. Clearly, if this perception continues to prevail, particularly in democratic societies, there is the danger it will paralyze
governments and thereby encourage further terrorist attacks. In sum, past experience provides useful lessons for a realistic future
strategy. The prudent application of force has been demonstrated to be an effective tool for short- and long-term deterrence of terrorism.
For example, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider, the Hebron commander of the Islamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The
assassination of Ismail Abu Shanab - a top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip who was directly responsible for several suicide bombings
including the latest bus attack in Jerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation in Iraq
eliminated Saddam Hussein's regime as a state sponsor of terror. Thus, it behooves those countries victimized by terrorism
to understand a cardinal message communicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory
at all costs, victory in spite of terror, victory however long and hard the road may be: For without victory, there is no
survival."
18
Democracy
Democracy checks extinction
Diamond 95. (Larry, Snr. research fellow @ Hoover Institute, Promoting Democracy in the 1990's, p 6-7)
This hardly exhausts the list of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the
former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of
illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made
common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic
ones. Nuclear, chemical. and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the
global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security
are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality,
accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.
19
Small Arms
Small Arms outweigh Nuclear Weapons -- certainty of use & systemic
impacts make them a higher priority.
Wood ‘94. (DAVID WOOD; NEWHOUSE NEWS SERVICE -- Plain Dealer – March
20th – lexis)
From Somalia to Sarajevo and in dozens of lesser-known conflicts, a relentless proliferation of small arms is fueling
a global wave of mayhem, and is beyond the ability of authorities to control or even monitor. A flood of excess Cold War weapons, together with a recent boom in
exports from new arms factories around the world, has combined to lethal effect with a virulent new form of conflict ideally
suited to small arms: ethnic and religious terrorism and violence, spurred by economic and environmental deterioration and overpopulation.
"A fully loaded fighter plane is obviously more deadly than a rifle, but there are a lot more rifles in the world and
they are used with much less discretion," said Aaron Karp, a political scientist at Old Dominion University in Virginia and one of a handful of arms analysts who
are beginning to study the problem. In the Persian Gulf war of 1991, 5,000 to 10,000 Iraqis are believed to have been killed, mostly by American bombers, guided missiles and long-range
artillery. By contrast, Karp said, a dozen "minor" conflicts around the world at the same time - in Angola and Cambodia, for instance – each produced more than 10,000 deaths, most of them the
While the world's arsenals of missiles, long-range bombers and nuclear weapons bear watching, Karp said,
"the greater danger certainly comes from the weapons used in ethnic conflict."
result of rifles, hand grenades and mines.
20
Famine
Food shortages lead to World War III
Calvin 98. (William, theoretical neurophysiologist @ U Washington, “The Great Climate Flip-Flop”,
Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 281, No. 1, January, p. 47-64)
The population-crash scenario is surely the most appalling. Plummeting crop yields would cause some powerful
countries to try to take over their neighbors or distant lands -- if only because their armies, unpaid and lacking food,
would go marauding, both at home and across the borders. The better-organized countries would attempt to use their
armies, before they fell apart entirely, to take over countries with significant remaining resources, driving out or
starving their inhabitants if not using modern weapons to accomplish the same end: eliminating competitors for the
remaining food. This would be a worldwide problem -- and could lead to a Third World War -- but Europe's
vulnerability is particularly easy to analyze. The last abrupt cooling, the Younger Dryas, drastically altered Europe's
climate as far east as Ukraine. Present-day Europe has more than 650 million people. It has excellent soils, and
largely grows its own food. It could no longer do so if it lost the extra warming from the North Atlantic.
21
Genocide
Genocide spreads rapidly and systemically kills millions – Sudan proves
Smith 05 (James- Chief executive of Aegis, an independent, international organisation, dedicated to
eliminating genocide. Darfur: the status quo is not an option. Oct 12
http://www.aegistrust.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=286&Itemid=88
)
A picture of deep concern regarding the situation in Darfur has been presented by Juan Mendez, Kofi Annan’s Special Advisor on Genocide
Prevention. Current policies of developed nations toward the crisis in Western Sudan appear to rely on there being a status quo in Darfur while a
settlement between the Government of Sudan and the African Darfur rebels is reached through political mediation. This dynamic must radically
change, or Darfur will spiral into an even greater tragedy whilst we tinker on the sidelines . First of all, nations must accept
that the status quo, if there is one, is unacceptable. The genocidal actions to get rid of African tribes from the Land of the Fur
is almost complete. Let us be reminded that around a quarter of a million people were killed in the violence of the past two years there. A
further two million people have been displaced from their villages and are corralled in camps. They are vulnerable to
attack by Arab militia at night, are ridden with disease and rape is rife. Aegis stated in clear terms during the past year that the
protection strategy in Darfur must be more robust. Recalling the lessons from Bosnia and from Rwanda that half-baked protection mandates and
half-strength protection forces lead to failed protection missions, the Protect Darfur campaign was launched. This was not a criticism of the
African Union. They have taken an appropriate and rightful lead as a regional organisation to respond rapidly to the crisis. There is no doubt
they have saved lives by their presence. But they have not been given all the support they need by major donors. Last month they ran out of
cash for fuel and salaries. To the shame of wealthy western governments who spoke piously about assistance to Africa this summer in
Edinburgh, independent grassroots organisations are trying to raise money to help the African Union mission in Sudan. A quarter of a million
dollars has been raised by the student movement Genocide Intervention Fund in the US, to pay for Rwandan policewomen to go to Darfur. If the
Security Council of the UN constrains the African Union protection force with its current mandate and current strength, it will be tantamount to
maintaining a situation that the Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic defined as ethnic cleansing. In Kosovo we reversed it, but in Darfur we maintain
it. In our briefings in June this year, Aegis warned that the apparent improvement in security was due to the near-completion of the operation of
the Janjaweed and Government of Sudan and that the situation would not remain stable. It was predictable that factions of the rebel groups would
seek to aggravate the conflict, as they will not tolerate such a status quo: "Reduction of direct violence during May 2005 is misleading
the international community into believing there is improvement in security. […] The harder the international community
make it for refugees to return and the more marginalized we allow the African population to become , the greater the
risk that rebel groups will convert this largely one-sided genocidal crisis into another protracted African civil war .
Without increased protection then, the less likely it will be to find a political solution to the crisis." Aegis Briefing 15 June 2005 “The
frustration of keeping the status quo in Darfur is likely to lead to greater attacks from the rebel groups, who have a rich source of young recruits
from the IDP camps. There is a high probability that the genocidal conflict organized by the Arab militia and the GOS in the
past three years may convert into a prolonged civil war that the small AU force would not be able to contain.” Aegis Briefing, 30 June 2005
Indeed, the rebels are now their own worst enemies, attacking not only Janjaweed Arab militia and Government of Sudan positions, but detaining
African Union mission workers. Three African Union personnel have been killed in the past week. Darfur is spiralling into further
tragedy that may engulf the entire country. Millions have already perished in Sudan’s multiple genocidal wars over the past two
decades and there are warnings that this vast country could soon fragment further. In addition to deterioration of the Darfur crisis in the West,
other regions of Sudan have growing tensions. In the East of Sudan, marginalised African tribes are also reaching tipping
point with the Government of Sudan. Sheikh Ali, a senior member of one political party in the East, the Beja Congress, referring to the lessons
of Darfur last week said “the Government only listens to people who carry guns.” I heard exactly the same comments from Darfur rebel
commanders when I was in Chad and Darfur 16 months ago, referring to the lessons from the South of Sudan. Then, prospect for peace in the
South looked hopeful, but the recent death of John Garang, the Southern leader, is another wound to the peace efforts in Sudan. The scene is
being set for millions more to face death, destruction and unimaginable suffering.
22
Poverty
Poverty outweighs an ongoing thermonuclear war
James Gilligan, Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, 2000 edition, Violence:
Reflections on Our Deadliest Epidemic, p. 195-196
The 14 to 18 million deaths a year caused by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year
from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the frequency of those
caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and
civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide--or about eight million per year, 1935-1945), the
Indonesian massacre of 1965-1966 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 19541973), and even a hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R (232 million), it was clear
that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other
word, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in
a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die
from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period.
This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide,
perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.
23
Environment
Each new species extinction risks planetary extinction-evidence is gender-modified
MAJOR DAVID N. DINER, Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army, Military Law
Review Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological
niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex the ecosystem,
the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several
strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere
breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many
ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in
Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be
expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and
intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the
risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, [hu]mankind may be
edging closer to the abyss. ([ ] = correction
24
Indo-Pak War
Indo-Pak war  global nuclear winter
Fai ‘01 (Ghulam Nabi, Executive Director, Kashmiri American Council, Washington Times, 7-8)
The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the lackadaisical and distant (with
India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous
place on the planet is Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years
and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars between the estranged
South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter
threatening the entire globe.
25
Protectionism
Protectionism causes extinction
MILLER & ELWOOD 98 Founder and President and Vice President of the International
Society for Individual Liberty
[Vincent H., & James R., “Free Trade or Protectionism? The Case against trade restrictions,”
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/free-trade-protectionism.html]
When the government of Country "A" puts up trade barriers against the goods
of Country "B", the government of Country "B" will naturally retaliate by erecting trade barriers
against the goods of Country "A". The result? A trade war in which both sides lose. But all too often a
depressed economy is not the only negative outcome of a trade war . . . WHEN GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS, ARMIES OFTEN
DO History is not lacking in examples of cold trade wars escalating into hot shooting wars : Europe
suffered from almost non-stop wars during the 17th and 18th centuries, when restrictive trade policy
(mercantilism) was the rule; rival governments fought each other to expand their empires and to exploit captive markets. British tariffs provoked the American
TRADE WARS: BOTH SIDES LOSE
colonists to revolution, and later the Northern-dominated US government imposed restrictions on Southern cotton exports - a major factor leading to the American Civil War. In the
late 19th Century, after a half century of general free trade (which brought a half-century of peace), short-sighted politicians throughout Europe again began erecting trade barriers.
Hostilities built up until they eventually exploded into World War I. In 1930, facing only a mild recession, US President Hoover ignored warning pleas in a petition by 1028 prominent
economists and signed the notorious Smoot-Hawley Act, which raised some tariffs to 100% levels. Within a year, over 25 other governments had retaliated by passing similar laws.
The result? World trade came to a grinding halt, and the entire world was plunged into the "Great Depression" for the rest of the decade. The depression in turn led to World War II.
The world enjoyed its greatest economic growth during the relatively free trade
period of 1945-1970, a period that also saw no major wars. Yet we again see trade barriers being
raised around the world by short-sighted politicians. Will the world again end up in a shooting war as a
result of these economically-deranged policies? Can we afford to allow this to happen in the nuclear
age? "What generates war is the economic philosophy of nationalism: embargoes, trade and foreign exchange controls, monetary devaluation, etc. The philosophy of
protectionism is a philosophy of war." Ludwig von Mises THE SOLUTION: FREE TRADE A century and a half ago French economist and statesman
THE #1 DANGER TO WORLD PEACE
Frederic Bastiat presented the practical case for free trade: "It is always beneficial," he said, "for a nation to specialize in what it can produce best and then trade with others to acquire
goods at costs lower than it would take to produce them at home." In the 20th century, journalist Frank Chodorov made a similar observation: "Society thrives on trade simply because
trade makes specialization possible, and specialization increases output, and increased output reduces the cost in toil for the satisfactions men live by. That being so, the market place
Silence gives consent, and there should be no consent to the current
waves of restrictive trade or capital control legislation being passed. If you agree that free trade is an
is a most humane institution." WHAT CAN YOU DO?
essential ingredient in maintaining world peace, and that it is important to your future, we suggest that you inform the political
leaders in your country of your concern regarding their interference with free trade. Send them a copy of this pamphlet. We also suggest that you write letters to editors in the media
and send this pamphlet to them. Discuss this issue with your friends and warn them of the danger of current "protectionist" trends. Check on how the issue is being taught in the
schools. Widespread public understanding of this issue, followed by citizen action, is the only solution. Free trade is too important an issue to leave in the hands of politicians.
"For
thousands of years, the tireless effort of productive men and women has been spent trying to reduce the distance between communities of the world by reducing the costs of
the slothful and incompetent protectionist has endlessly sought
to erect barriers in order to prohibit competition - thus, effectively moving communities
farther apart. When trade is cut off entirely, the real producers may as well be on different
planets. "The protectionist represents the worst in humanity: fear of change, fear of challenge, and
commerce and trade. "Over the same span of history,
the jealous envy of genius. The protectionist is not against the use of every kind of force, even warfare,
to crush [his or her] rival. If [hu]mankind is to survive, then these primeval fears must be
defeated."
26
Value to Life
Loss of Being obliterates the value of life and is a fate worse than nuclear annihilation
Zimmerman 94, Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University
[Michael E., Contesting earth’s
future, p. 119-120]
the eclipse of being, threatens the relation
between being and human Dasein. Loss of this relation would be even more
dangerous than a nuclear war that might “bring about the complete annihilation of
humanity and the destruction of the earth.” This controversial claim is comparable to the Christian teaching that
it is better to forfeit the world than to lose one’s soul by losing one’s relation to God. Heidegger apparently thought along these lines: it is
possible that after a nuclear war, life might once again emerge, but it is far less
likely that there will ever again occur an ontological clearing through which
such life could manifest itself. Further, since modernity’s one-dimensional disclosure of entities virtually denies them any
Heidegger asserted that human self-assertion, combined with
“being” at all, the loss of humanity’s openness for being is already occurring. Modernity’s background mood is horror in the face of nihilism, which is
The unleashing of vast
quantities of energy in nuclear war would be equivalent to modernity’s slowmotion destruction of nature: unbounded destruction would equal limitless consumption. If humanity
avoided nuclear war only to survive as contented clever animals, Heidegger believed we
would exist in a state of ontological damnation: hell on earth, masquerading as
material paradise. Deep ecologists might agree that a world of material human comfort
purchased at the price of everything wild would not be a world worth living in,
consistent with the aim of providing material “happiness” for everyone by reducing nature to pure energy.
for in killing wild nature, people would be as good as dead. But most of them could not agree that the loss of humanity’s relation to being would be worse
than nuclear omnicide, for it is wrong to suppose that the lives of millions of extinct and unknown species are somehow lessened because they were never
“disclosed” by humanity.
27
Patriarchy
Patriarchy fuels war and environmental destruction – transcending this system is key to preserve life on earth
Warren and Cady 96 – Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Macalester University; and
Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Hamline University
[Karen and Duane, Bringing peace home: feminism, violence, and nature, p. 12-13]
Operationalied, the evidence of patriarchy as a dysfunctional system is found in the behaviors to which it
gives rise, (c) the unmanageability, (d) which results. For example, in the United States, current estimates are
that one out of every three or four women will be raped by someone she knows; globally, rape, sexual
harassment, spouse-beating, and sado-massochistic pornography are examples of behaviors practices,
sanctioned, or tolerated within patriarchy. In the realm of environmentally destructive behaviors, stripmining, factory farming, and pollution of the air, water, and soil are instances of behaviors maintained and
sanctioned within patriarchy. They, too, rest on the faulty beliefs that it is okay to “rape the earth,” that it is
“man’s God-given right” to have dominion (that is, domination) over the earth, that nature has only
instrumental value, that environmental destruction is the acceptable price we pay for “progress.” And the
presumption of warism, that war is a natural, righteous, and ordinary way to impose dominion on a people or
nation, goes hand in hand with patriarchy and leads to dysfunctional behaviors of nations and ultimately to
international unmanageability. Much of the current “unmanageability” of contemporary life in patriarchal
societies, (d), is then viewed as a consequence of a patriarchal preoccupation with activities, events, and
experiences that reflect historically male-gender-identified beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions.
Included among these real-life consequences are precisely those concerns with nuclear proliferation, war,
environmental destruction, and violence towards women, which many feminists see as the logical outgrowth
of patriarchal thinking. In fact, it is often only through observing these dysfunctional behaviors—the
symptoms of dysfunctionality—that one can truly see that and how patriarchy serves to maintain and
perpetuate them. When patriarchy is understood as a dysfunctional system, this “unmanageability” can be
seen for what it is—as a predictable and thus logical consequence of patriarchy. The theme that global
environmental crises, war, and violence generally are predictable and logical consequences of sexism and
patriarchal culture is pervasive in ecofeminist literature. Ecofeminist Charlene Spretnak, for instance, argues
that “a militarism and warfare are continual features of a patriarchal society because they reflect and instill
patriarchal values and fulfill needs of such a system. Acknowledging the context of patriarchal
conceptualizations that feed militarism is a first step toward reducing their impact and preserving life on
Earth.” Stated in terms of the foregoing model of patriarchy as a dysfunctional social system, the claims by
Spretnak and other feminists take on a clearer meaning: Patriarchal conceptual frameworks legitimate
impaired thinking (about women, national and regional conflict, the environment) which is manifested in
behaviors which, if continued, will make life on earth difficult, if not impossible. It is a stark message, but it is
plausible. Its plausibility lies in understanding the conceptual roots of various woman-nature-peace
connections in regional, national, and global contexts.
28
Racism
Racism causes extinction.
Barndt 1991 (Joseph; Pastor and Co-director of Crossroads – a ministry working to
dismantle racism and build a multicultural church and society) Dismantling Racism: The
Continuing Challenge to White America 155-6
To study racism is to study walls. We have looked at barriers and fences, restraints and
limitations, ghettos and prisons. The prison of racism confines us all, people of color and
white people alike. It shackles the victimizer as well as the victim. The walls forcibly keep
people of color and white people separate from each other; in our separate prisons we are
all prevented from achieving the human potential that God intends for us. The limitations
imposed on people of color by poverty, subservience, and powerlessness are cruel,
inhuman, and unjust; the effects of uncontrolled power, privilege, and greed, which
are the marks of our white prison, will inevitably destroy us as well. But we have
also seen that the walls of racism can be dismantled. We are not condemned to an
inexorable fate, but are offered the vision and the possibility of freedom . Brick by
brick, stone by stone, the prison of individual, institutional, and cultural racism can
be destroyed. You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is
time to tear down, once and for all, the walls of racism. The danger point of selfdestruction seems to be drawing ever more near . The results of centuries of national
and worldwide conquest and colonialism, of military buildups and violent aggression, of overconsumption and environmental destruction may be reaching a point of
no return . A small and predominantly white minority of the global population derives its
power and privilege from the sufferings of the vast majority of peoples of color. For the
sake of the world and ourselves, we dare not allow it to continue .
29
Dehumanization
Dehumanization outweighs all – it’s the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse
Montagu and Matson 83 – Esteemed Scientist and Writer; and Professor of American
Studies at University of Hawaii
[Ashley and Floyd, The dehumanization of man, http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:hnDfqSFkJJwJ:www.cross-x.com/vb/archive/index.php/t939595.html+montagu+matson+dehumanization&hl=en]
The contagion is unknown to science and unrecognized by medicine (psychiatry aside); yet its wasting symptoms are plain for
all to see and its lethal effects are everywhere on display. It neither kills outright nor inflicts apparent physical harm, yet the extent
of its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natual calamity on record -and its potential damage to the quality of human life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason,
this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Hourseman of the Apocalypse. Its more conventional
name, of course, is dehumanization.
30
International Law
International law is essential to avert planetary extinction
Malaysian Medical Association 02
[“11TH SEPTEMBER - DAY OF REMEMBRANCE,” Sep 6,
http://www.mma.org.my/current_topic/sept.htm]
Our world is increasingly interdependent and the repercussions of the actions of states, non-state actors and
individuals transcend national boundaries. Weapons of mass destruction, landmines, small arms and environmental
damage have global consequences, whether they be deadly armed conflict, nuclear testing or climate
change from global warming. The risk of nuclear war continues to threaten human survival. The casualties resulting from
even a single explosion would overwhelm the medical facilities in any city in the world. The use of nuclear weapons is morally indefensible, and the
International Court of Justice has declared their use and threatened use illegal. Yet, nuclear weapons remain part of the military strategy of many nations.
Nuclear war must be prevented. Nuclear weapons must be eliminated. Ongoing violations of the United Nations Charter and international humanitarian and
human rights law and increasing poverty and preventable disease continue to fuel violence. World military expenditure, estimated at US$839 billion in 2001,
We call
on all governments to place their foreign and domestic policies and their behaviour under the scrutiny of international
law and international institutions. Each government must take primary responsibility for ending its own contribution to the cycle of violence. As citizens,
prevents governments from meeting the social needs of their citizens and the global proliferation of armaments has caused unspeakable carnage.
we are expected to abide by the law. We expect no less from governments. This is a necessary part of honouring the lives of so many men, women and
global problems should be solved by cooperating and complying
with multilateral legally-binding treaties, and by embracing the rule of law as valuable instruments for building
common security and safe-guarding the long-term, collective interests of humanity, there are unmistable signs that
children whose deaths are commemorate. At a time when
powerful states are taking unilateral action, setting aside international treaties, and undermining international law. The principle of the rule of law implies
even the most powerful must comply with the law, even if it is difficult or costly or when superior
economic, military and diplomatic power may seem to make compliance unnecessary. The destruction of the
that
symbols of American economic power and military might on 11th September is a salutary reminder that military power, including the possession of nuclear
weapons, does not deter terrorists or confer security or invulnerability. It has prompted the Bush administration to declare "war on terror" and convinced it
that a military response is the best way to fight terrorism on a global scale, without considering alternative, more effective ways of combating terrorism,
such as addressing the root causes of terrorism. The greatest betrayal of those who died on 11th September 2001 would be to not recognise that there are
non-violent ways of resolving conflict. This is a difficult, uncertain path to take, whereas violence and war are easy, predictable options. The lesson of 11th
our collective survival depends upon forging cooperative, just and equitable relationships with
each other; in rejecting violence and war; and in pursuing non-violent resolutions to conflict. The alternative is a world perpetually
divided, continually at war, and possibly destroying itself through environmental degradation or the use of
September is that
weapons of mass destruction.
31
Federalism
Federalism is essential to prevent warfare
Calabresi 95 – Associate Professor at Northwestern University School of Law
[Steven G., “‘A GOVERNMENT OF LIMITED AND ENUMERATED POWERS’: IN DEFENSE OF UNITED STATES v.
LOPEZ,” Michigan Law Review, Dec, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 752, LN]
federalism is a big part of what keeps the peace in countries like the United States and Switzerland. It is a big
why we do not have a Bosnia or a Northern Ireland or a Basque country or a Chechnya or a Corsica or a Quebec
problem. 51 American federalism in the end is not a trivial matter or a quaint historical anachronism. American-style federalism is a thriving and
vital institutional arrangement - partly planned by the Framers, partly the accident of history - and it prevents violence and war. It prevents
religious warfare, it prevents secessionist warfare, and it prevents racial warfare. It is part of the reason why democratic majoritarianism in
Small state
part of the reason
the United States has not produced violence or secession for 130 years, unlike the situation for example, in England, France, Germany, Russia,
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that is more important or that has done more
to promote peace, prosperity, and freedom than the federal structure of that great document. There is nothing in the U.S.
Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Cyprus, or Spain.
Constitution that should absorb more completely the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court. So far, I have focused on the advantages of American-style smallstate federalism in defusing centrifugal devolutionary tendencies, alleviating majority tyranny, and accentuating crosscutting social cleavages. But what
about the advantages of international federalism; what are the ad- [*771] vantages of consolidating states into larger federal entities, as happened in North
America in 1787 or in Europe in 1957? A first and obvious advantage is that consolidation reduces the threat of war. Because war usually occurs when two
or more states compete for land or other resources, a reduction in the number of states also will reduce the likelihood of war. This result is especially true if
the reduction in the number of states eliminates land boundaries between states that are hard to police, generate friction and border disputes, and that may
require large standing armies to defend. In a brilliant article, Professor Akhil Amar has noted the importance of this point to both to the Framers of our
Constitution and to President Abraham Lincoln. 52 Professor Amar shows that they believed a Union of States was essential in North America because
otherwise the existence of land boundaries would lead here - as it had in Europe - to the creation of standing armies and ultimately to war. 53 The Framers
accepted the old British notion that it was Britain's island situation that had kept her free of war and, importantly, free of a standing army that could be used
to oppress the liberties of the people in a way that the British navy never could. These old geostrategic arguments for federalist consolidation obviously hold
true today and played a role in the forming of the European Union, the United Nations, and almost every other multinational federation or alliance that has
been created since 1945. Sometimes the geostrategic argument is expanded to become an argument for a multinational defensive alliance, like NATO, against
a destabilizing power, like the former Soviet Union. In this variation, international federalism is partly a means of providing for the common defense and
partly a means of reducing the likelihood of intra-alliance warfare in order to produce a united front against the prime military threat. Providing for the
common defense, though, is itself a second and independent reason for forming international federations. It was a motivation for the formation of the U.S.
federation in 1787 and, more recently, the European Union. A third related advantage is that international federations can undertake a host of governmental
activities in which there are significant economies of scale. This is one reason why federations can provide better for the common defense than can their
constituent parts. Intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear-powered aircraft [*772] carriers and submarines, and B-2 stealth bombers tend to be expensive.
Economies of scale make it cheaper for fifty states to produce one set of these items than it would be for fifty states to try to produce fifty sets. This is true
even without factoring in the North American regional tensions that would be created if this continent had to endure the presence of fifty nuclear
minipowers, assuming that each small state could afford to own at least one Hiroshima-sized nuclear bomb. Important governmental economies of scale
obtain in other areas, as well, however, going well beyond national defense. For example, there are important economies of scale to the governmental
provision of space programs, scientific and biomedical research programs, the creation of transportation infrastructure, and even the running of some kinds
of income and wealth redistribution programs. A fourth and vital advantage to international federations is that they can promote the free movement of
goods and labor both among the components of the federation by reducing internal transaction costs and internationally by providing a unified front that
reduces the costs of collective action when bargaining with other federations and nations. This reduces the barriers to an enormous range of utilitymaximizing transactions thereby producing an enormous increase in social wealth. Many federations have been formed in part for this reason, including the
United States, the European Union, and the British Commonwealth, as well as all the trade-specific "federations" like the GATT and NAFTA. A fifth advantage
to international federations is that they can help regulate externalities that may be generated by the policies and laws of one member state upon other
member states. As I explain in more detail below, these externalities can be both negative and positive, 54 and, in both situations, some type of federal or
international action may sometimes be appropriate. A well-known example of a problematic negative externality that could call for federal or international
intervention occurs when one state pollutes the air or water of another and refuses to stop because all the costs of its otherwise beneficial action accrue to
its neighbor. 55 [*773] Sixth and finally, 56 an advantage to international federation is that it may facilitate the protection of individual human rights. For
reasons Madison explained in the Federalist Ten, 57 large governmental structures may be more sensitive than smaller governmental structures to the
problems of abuse of individual and minority rights. 58 Remote federal legislatures or courts, like the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court, sometimes can
protect important individual rights when national or local entities might be unable to do so. 59 As I have explained elsewhere, this argument remains a
persuasive part of the case for augmented federal powers. 60 Some of the best arguments for centripetal international federalism, then, resemble some of
the best arguments for centrifugal devolutionary federalism: in both cases - and for differing reasons -
federalism helps prevent bloodshed
and war. It is no wonder, then, that we live in an age of federalism at both the international and subnational level. Under the right circumstances,
federalism can help to promote peace, prosperity, and happiness. It can alleviate the threat of majority
tyranny - which is the central flaw of democracy. In some situations, it can reduce the visibility of dangerous social fault lines,
thereby preventing bloodshed and violence. This necessarily brief comparative, historical, and empirical survey of the world's
experience with federalism amply demonstrates the benefits at least of American-style small-state federalism. 61 In light of this evidence, the United
States would be foolish indeed to abandon its federal system. [*774]
32
Prolif
Wildfire prolif will trigger preemptive nuclear wars around the planet
Utgoff 02, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for
Defense Analysis
[Victor A., “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions,” Survival, Summer, p. 87-90] bg
Further, the large number of states that became capable of building nuclear weapons over the years, but chose not to, can be reasonably well explained by the fact that most were formally allied with either theUnited
Statesor theSoviet Union. Both these superpowers had strong nuclear forces and put great pressure on their allies not to build nuclear weapons. Since the Cold War, theUShas retained all its allies. In addition, NATO has
extended its protection to some of the previous allies of theSoviet Unionand plans on taking in more. Nuclear proliferation by India and Pakistan, and proliferation programmes by North Korea, Iran and Iraq, all involve
states in the opposite situation: all judged that they faced serious military opposition and had little prospect of establishing a reliable supporting alliance with a suitably strong, nuclear-armed state. What would await the
if strong protectors, especially theUnited States, were [was] no longer seen as willing to protect states from nuclear-backed aggression? At least a few additional states would
begin to build their own nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to distant targets,and these initiatives would
spur increasing numbers of the world’s capable states to follow suit. Restraint would seem ever less necessary and ever more dan-gerous. Meanwhile,
world
more states are becoming capable of building nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Many, perhaps most, of the world’s states are becoming sufficiently wealthy, and the technology for building nuclear forces
continues to improve and spread. Finally, it seems highly likely that at some point, halting proliferation will come to be seen as a lost cause and the restraints on it will disappear. Once that happens
, the
transition to a highly proliferated world would probably be very rapid. While some regions might be able to hold the
line for a time, the threats posed by wildfire proliferation in most other areas could create pressures
that would finally overcome all restraint. Many readers are probably willing to accept that nuclear proliferation is such a grave threat to world peace that every
effort should be made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talking about much more substantial efforts now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow
or stop nuclear proliferation, it needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that would sooner or later evolve without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And, for many reasons, it is not.
the dynamics of getting to a highly proliferated world could be very dangerous. Proliferating states will
feel great pressures to obtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems before any potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing an opponent
may consider preemptive nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear
retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponent’s nuclear programme or defeat the opponent using conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building
First,
nuclear weapons may still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological weapons. Second, as the world approaches complete proliferation, the hazards posed
by nuclear weapons today will be magnified many times over. Fifty or more nations capable of launching nuclear weapons means that the risk of nuclear accidents that could cause serious damage not only to their own
populations and environments, but those of others, is hugely increased. The chances of such weapons failing into the hands of renegade military units or terrorists is far greater, as is the number of nations carrying out
hazardous manufacturing and storage activities. Worse still, in a highly proliferated world there would be more frequent opportunities for the use of nuclear weapons. And more frequent opportunities means shorter
expected times between conflicts in which nuclear weapons get used, unless the probability of use at any opportunity is actually zero. To be sure, some theorists on nuclear deterrence appear to think that in any
confrontation between two states known to have reliable nuclear capabilities, the probability of nuclear weapons being used is zero.’ These theorists think that such states will be so fearful of escalation to nuclear war
that they would always avoid or terminate confrontations between them, short of even conventional war. They believe this to be true even if the two states have different cultures or leaders with very eccentric
personalities. History and human nature, however, suggest that they are almost surely wrong. History includes instances in which states ‘known to possess nuclear weapons did engage in direct conventional
conflict.ChinaandRussiafought battles along their common border even after both had nuclear weapons. Moreover, logic suggests that if states with nuclear weapons always avoided conflict with one another, surely
states without nuclear weapons would avoid conflict with states that had them. Again, history provides counter-examplesEgyptattackedIsraelin 1973 even though it sawIsraelas a nuclear power at the
time.Argentinainvaded theFalkland Islandsand foughtBritain’s efforts to take them back, even thoughBritainhad nuclear weapons. Those who claim that two states with reliable nuclear capabilities to devastate each
other will not engage in conventional conflict risking nuclear war also assume that any leader from any culture would not choose suicide for his nation. But history provides unhappy examples of states whose leaders
were ready to choose suicide for themselves and their fellow citizens. Hitler tried to impose a ‘victory or destruction’’ policy on his people as Nazi Germany was going down to defeat. AndJapan’s war minister, during
debates on how to respond to the American atomic bombing, suggested ‘Would it not be wondrous for the whole nation to be destroyed like a beautiful flower?” If leaders are willing to engage in conflict with nucleararmed nations, use of nuclear weapons in any particular instance may not be likely, but its probability would still be dangerously significant. In particular, human nature suggests that the threat of retaliation with nuclear
weapons is not a reliable guarantee against a disastrous first use of these weapons. While national leaders and their advisors everywhere are usually talented and experienced people, even their most important decisions
cannot be counted on to be the product of well-informed and thorough assessments of all options from all relevant points of view. This is especially so when the stakes are so large as to defy assessment and there are
substantial pressures to act quickly, as could be expected in intense and fast-moving crises between nuclear-armed states. Instead, like other human beings, national leaders can be seduced by wishful thinking. They can
misinterpret the words or actions of opposing leaders. Their advisors may produce answers that they think the leader wants to hear, or coalesce around what they know is an inferior decision because the group urgently
needs the confidence or the sharing of responsibility that results from settling on something. Moreover, leaders may not 33ecognize clearly where their personal or party interests diverge from those of their citizens.
Under great stress, human beings can lose their ability to think carefully. They can refuse to believe that the worst could really happen, oversimplify the problem at hand, think in terms of simplistic analogies and play
hunches. The intuitive rules for how individuals should respond to insults or signs of weakness in an opponent may too readily suggest a rash course of action. Anger, fear, greed, ambition and pride can all lead to bad
decisions. The desire for a decisive solution to the problem at hand may lead to an unnecessarily extreme course of action. We can almost hear the kinds of words that could flow from discussions in nuclear crises or war.
‘These people are not willing to die for this interest’. ‘No sane person would actually use such weapons’. ‘Perhaps the opponent will back down if we show him we mean business by demonstrating a willingness to use
nuclear weapons’. ‘If I don’t hit them back really hard, I am going to be driven from office, if not killed’. Whether right or wrong, in the stressful atmosphere of a nuclear crisis or war, such words from others, or silently
from within, might resonate too readily with a harried leader. Thus, both history and human nature suggest that nuclear deterrence can be expected to fail from time to time, and we are fortunate it has not happened yet.
But the threat of nuclear war is not just a matter of a few weapons being used. It could get much worse. Once a conflict reaches the point where nuclear weapons are employed, the stresses felt by the leaderships would
rise enormously. These stresses can be expected to further degrade their decision-making. The pressures to force the enemy to stop fighting or to surrender could argue for more forceful and decisive military action,
which might be the right thing to do in the circumstances, but maybe not. And the horrors of the carnage already suffered may be seen as justification for visiting the most devastating punishment possible on the enemy.’
Again, history demonstrates how intense conflict can lead the combatants to escalate violence to the maximum possible levels. In the Second World War, early promises not to bomb cities soon gave way to essentially
indiscriminate bombing of civilians. The war betweenIranandIraqduring the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and exchanges of missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the
Escalation of
violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent
acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the participants before hand. Intense and blinding anger is a common response
to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is
likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs
will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with
the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the
American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’
on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to
bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations. This kind of world is in no nation’s interest. The means for preventing it must be pursuedvigorously. And, as argued
above,a most powerful way to prevent it or slow its emergence is to encourage the more capable states to provide reliable protection to others against aggression, even
Middle East escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other.
when that aggression could be backed with nuclear weapons. In other words,the world needs at least one state, preferably several,willingand ableto play the role of sheriff, or to be members of a sheriff’s posse, even in
the face of nuclear threats.
33
Air Pollution
Air pollution kills 70,000 people in the U.S. every year—the impact is linear.
Roberts 2 — Bernie Fischlowitz-Roberts, Analyst at the Earth Policy Institute, 2002 (“Air
Pollution Fatalities Now Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 3 to 1,” Earth Policy Institute,
September 17th, Available Online at http://www.earthpolicy.org/plan_b_updates/2002/update17, Accessed 06-10-2012)
The World Health Organization reports that 3 million people now die each year from the effects of air pollution.
This is three times the 1 million who die each year in automobile accidents. A study published in The Lancet in 2000 concluded that air
pollution in France, Austria, and Switzerland is responsible for more than 40,000 deaths annually in those three countries. About half of
these deaths can be traced to air pollution from vehicle emissions.
In the United States, traffic fatalities total just over 40,000 per year, while air pollution claims 70,000 lives annually . U.S. air
pollution deaths are equal to deaths from breast cancer and prostate cancer combined. This scourge of cities in
industrial and developing countries alike threatens the health of billions of people.
Governments go to great lengths to reduce traffic accidents by fining those who drive at dangerous speeds, arresting those who drive
under the influence of alcohol, and even sometimes revoking drivers' licenses. But they pay much less attention to the deaths people
cause by simply driving the cars. While deaths from heart disease and respiratory illness from breathing polluted air
may lack the drama of deaths from an automobile crash, with flashing lights and sirens, they are no less real .
Air pollutants include carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates. These pollutants come primarily
from the combustion of fossil fuels , principally coal-fired power plants and gasoline-powered automobiles. Nitrogen oxides can
lead to the formation of ground-level ozone. Particulates are emitted from a variety of sources, primarily diesel engines. "Smog"-a hybrid
word used to describe the mixture of smoke and fog that blankets some cities-is primarily composed of ozone and particulates.
34
Iran Strikes
Iran strikes causes multiple scenarios for extinction.
Chossudovsky -06 (Michel Chossudovsky, The Next Phase of the Middle East War, Global Research,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3147)
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. This is not an
overstatement. If aerial bombardments were to be launched against Iran, they would trigger a ground war and
the escalation of the conflict to a much broader region. Even in the case of aerial and missile attacks using
conventional warheads, the bombings would unleash a "Chernobyl type" nuclear nightmare resulting from
the spread of nuclear radiation following the destruction of Iran's nuclear energy facilities. Throughout history, the structure of
military alliances has played a crucial role in triggering major military conflicts. In contrast to the situation prevailing prior to the 2003
invasion of Iraq, America's ongoing military adventure is now firmly supported by the Franco-German alliance. Moreover, Israel is slated
to play a direct role in this military operation. NATO is firmly aligned with the Anglo-American-Israeli military axis, which also includes
Australia and Canada. In 2005, NATO signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel, and Israel has a longstanding bilateral military
agreement with Turkey. Iran has observer status in The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and is slated to become a full
member of SCO. China and Russia have far-reaching military cooperation agreements with Iran. China and Russia are firmly opposed to
a US-led military operation in the diplomatic arena. While the US sponsored military plan threatens Russian and Chinese interests in
Central Asia and the Caspian sea basin, it is unlikely that they would intervene militarily on the side of Iran or Syria. The planned
attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely
Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon-Palestine. The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the
Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are
stationed. Military action against Iran and Syria would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn
would trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention the further implosion in the
Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks. If the US-UK-Israeli war plans
were to proceed, the broader Middle East- Central Asian region would flare up, from the Eastern Mediterranean
to the Afghan-Chinese border. At present, there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine-Lebanon. An
attack directed against Iran would serve to integrate these war theaters transforming the broader Middle
East Central Asian region into an integrated war zone. (see map above) In turn the US sponsored aerial
bombardments directed against Iran could contribute to triggering a ground war characterized by Iranian attacks
directed against coalition troops in Iraq. In turn, Israeli forces would enter into Syria. An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on
the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and
resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia-
Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct
participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances , etc. raises the specter of a
broader conflict. The war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize
the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.
35
Middle East Instability
Middle East instability causes nuclear war.
Steinberg 5, a Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is Director of the
Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan,
Israel, http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief005-11.htm)
There is no basis for accepting the Iranian claim that it is not seeking nuclear weapons or the assertion that a nuclear Iran is not
dangerous. Iran's leaders repeatedly declare the goal of destroying Israel, and in October 2005, Iran's new president Ahmadinejad repeated the
threat in a public meeting. A few weeks earlier, the streets of Teheran were filled by missiles on parade, decorated with posters declaring the intention to "wipe Israel off the
map."
Iranian links with Hizballah and Islamic Jihad are very strong, and with a nuclear umbrella from Iran, Hizballah could
miscalculate and escalate attacks on Israel. A situation similar to that of India and Pakistan could develop , where in 1998 and again in
2001, Pakistani insurgents thought they were immune from attack due to the nuclear balance of power, which led to a major crisis that came close to nuclear war.
In this
case, India and Pakistan have diplomatic relations and direct communications, which helped to avert a wider conflict. Iran and
Israel have no such relations. Indeed, Iranian decision-makers lack any contact or understanding with both Israel and also the
U.S.2 In addition, Iranian progress toward the development of nuclear weapons will likely trigger regional proliferation involving
Egypt, Syria, Libya
(again),
Algeria, and Saudi Arabia. These countries have maintained lower-level nuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons programs, which have become more active lately as Iran has accelerated its efforts .
36
Bird Flu
Bird flu causes extinction
Greger, ’06
(Michael, Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Hatching)
Other public health authorities have expressed similar sentiments on a global scale. World
Health Organization executive director David Nabarro was recently appointed the bird flu
czar of the United Nations. At a press conference at UN headquarters in New York, Nabarro
tried to impress upon journalists that “we’re dealing here with world survival issues—or
the survival of the world as we know it.”583 “The reality is that if a pandemic hits,”
explained the executive director of Trust for America’s Health, a public health policy group,
“it’s not just a health emergency. It’s the big one.”584 Similar fears reportedly keep U.S.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt awake at night. “It’s a world-changing
event when it occurs,” Leavitt said in an interview. “It reaches beyond health. It affects
economies, cultures, politics and prosperity—not to mention human life, counted by the
millions.”585 Yes, but what are the odds of it actually happening? What are the odds that a
killer flu virus will spread across the world like a tidal wave, killing millions? “The burning
question is, will there be a human influenza pandemic,” Secretary Leavitt told reporters.
“On behalf of the WHO, I can tell you that there will be. The only question is the virulence
and rapidity of transmission from human to human.”586 The Director-General of the World
Health Organization concurred: “[T]here is no disagreement that this is just a matter of
time.”587 “The world just has no idea what it’s going to see if this thing comes,” the head of
the CDC’s International Emerging Infections Program in Thailand said, but then stopped.
“When, really. It’s when. I don’t think we can afford the luxury of the word ‘if’ anymore. We
are past ‘if’s.’”588 The Chief Medical Officer of Great Britain,589 the Director-General of
Health of Germany,590 the director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control,591 the Senior
United Nations Coordinator for Avian and Human Influenza,592 and the director of the U.S.
National Security Health Policy Center593 all agree that another influenza pandemic is only
a matter of time. As the director of Trust for America’s Health put it, “This is not a drill. This
is not a planning exercise. This is for real.
37
AIDS
African AIDS will spread globally and cause extinction
Muchiri 00, Staff Member at Ministry of Education in Nairobi
[Michael Kibaara, “Will Annan finally put out Africa’s fires?” Jakarta Post, March 6, LN] bg
The executive director of UNAIDS, Peter Piot, estimated that Africa would annually need between $ 1 billion to $ 3 billion to combat the disease, but currently receives only $ 160 million a year in official assistance.
World Bank President James Wolfensohn lamented that Africa was losing teachers faster than
they could be replaced, and that AIDS was now more effective than war in destabilizing
African countries. Statistics show that AIDS is the leading killer in sub-Saharan Africa, surpassing people killed in warfare. In 1998, 200,000 people died from armed conflicts compared to 2.2
million from AIDS. Some 33.6 million people have HIV around the world, 70 percent of them in Africa, thereby robbing countries of their most productive members and decimating entire villages. About 13
million of the 16 million people who have died of AIDS are in Africa, according to the UN. What barometer is used to proclaim
a holocaust if this number is not a sure measure? There is no doubt that AIDS is the most serious threat to humankind,
more serious than hurricanes, earthquakes, economic crises, capital crashes or floods. It has no
cure yet. We are watching a whole continent degenerate into ghostly skeletons that finally
succumb to a most excruciating, dehumanizing death. Gore said that his new initiative, if approved by the U.S. Congress, would bring U.S.
contributions to fighting AIDS and other infectious diseases to $ 325 million. Does this mean that the UN Security Council and the U.S. in particular have at last decided to remember Africa? Suddenly, AIDS was seen as
threat to world peace, and Gore would ask the congress to set up millions of dollars on this case. The hope is that Gore does not intend to make political capital out of this by painting the usually disagreeable Republicancontrolled Congress as the bad guy and hope the buck stops on the whole of current and future U.S. governments' conscience. Maybe there is nothing left to salvage in Africa after all and this talk is about the African-
the AIDS challenge is a fundamental
one in that it threatens to wipe out [humanity] man. The challenge is not one of a single continent alone because Africa cannot be
quarantined. The trouble is that AIDS has no cure -- and thus even the West has stakes in
the AIDS challenge. Once sub-Saharan Africa is wiped out, it shall not be long before
another continent is on the brink of extinction. Sure as death, Africa's time has run out,
signaling the beginning of the end of the black race and maybe the human race. Gender
Paraphrased
American vote in November's U.S. presidential vote. Although the UN and the Security Council cannot solve all African problems,
38
Soil Erosion
Soil erosion risks extinction
Robbins 97 [John, author of the Pulitzer Prize-nominated Diet for a New America, “The Ground Beneath Our Feet,” accessed on 12/24/04. pg.
http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/invest/robbins1.html]edlee
It is becoming increasingly apparent that our world is in deep peril. Hardly a day goes by that we don’t learn
of some new misfortune to the ecosystem: The accelerating greenhouse effect, the erosion of topsoil, the decimation of forests and habitats, the widening
It is becoming
increasingly inescapable that the very biological fabric on which all human and other forms
of life depend is coming unravelled. And the reason? Livestock today consume 80% of the corn, 95% of the oats, and almost all of
hole in the ozone layer, the pollution of air, water, and soil, the tidal wave of extinction sweeping over the globe.
the soybeans grown in the United States. They consume enough grain and soybeans to feed more than five times the entire human population of the country.
If people ate the grains directly, instead of cycling them through livestock, the benefits to the ecosystem would be staggering. So much more efficient is a
more vegetarian diet that less than one half the current agricultural acreage would be needed. The rest could revert to the wild, producing enormous savings
in water and energy. We would not have to cut down forests and destroy habitats to create land on which to grow feed for livestock. We wouldn’t have to
force our acreage to produce and squeeze every last possible yield from it. We could dispense with synthetic fertilizers and toxic pesticides, and still have
vast surpluses of food. Our world would be a far greener one, with far less pollution, cleaner air and cleaner water, and a more stable climate. In fact, it is
hard to conceive how much we have environmentally to gain by switching to a more vegetarian diet. There is not a single aspect of the ecological crisis that
Archaeologists tell
us that soil erosion has played a determining role in the decline and demise of many great
civilizations, including those of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and the Mayans. Wherever soil erosion has destroyed the
fertility base on which civilizations have been built, these civilizations have perished. Two hundred years ago, most of
would not be immediately and profoundly improved by such a transformation. From dust we came and to dust we return.
America’s croplands had at least 21 inches of topsoil. Today, most of it is down to around six inches, and the rate of topsoil loss is accelerating. We have
.The U.S. Soil Conservation Service reports
that more than four million acres of cropland are being lost to erosion in this country every
year. That’s an area the size of Connecticut. Of this staggering loss, 85 percent is directly associated with livestock raising. Without a diet-style change,
we are well on our way to losing what many scientists feel has always been the basis of our
strength as a nation.
already lost 75 percent of what may well be our most precious natural resource
39
40