ADI 8

Malthus

1 Abe

MALTHUS
MALTHUS....................................................................................................................................................................................1 Hingstman 21.................................................................................................................................................................................1 1NC – THE NEGATIVE STRATEGY..........................................................................................................................................2 1NC – THE NEGATIVE STRATEGY..........................................................................................................................................3 1NC – THE NEGATIVE STRATEGY..........................................................................................................................................4 **UNIQUENESS**......................................................................................................................................................................5 2NC UNIQUENESS – GENERIC................................................................................................................................................6 2NC UNIQUENESS – AFRICA (1/2)..........................................................................................................................................7 2NC UNIQUENESS – AFRICA (2/2)..........................................................................................................................................8 2NC UNIQUENESS – INDIA......................................................................................................................................................9 2NC UNIQUENESS – 2036.......................................................................................................................................................10 2NC UNIQUENESS – SPECIES EXTINCTION.......................................................................................................................11 2NC UNIQUENESS – A2 DENSITY.........................................................................................................................................12 2NC UNIQUENESS – A2 EMPIRICALLY DENIED................................................................................................................13 2NC UNIQUENESS – A2 POPULATION FORECASTING FAILS.........................................................................................14 2NC UNIQUENESS – A2 SIMON.............................................................................................................................................15 **LINKS**.................................................................................................................................................................................16 2NC LINK – LINEAR................................................................................................................................................................17 2NC LINK – DISEASE...............................................................................................................................................................18 2NC LINK – FAMINE................................................................................................................................................................19 2NC LINK – POLLUTION ........................................................................................................................................................20 2NC LINK – A2 AGRICULTURE..............................................................................................................................................21 2NC LINK – A2 AQUACULTURE............................................................................................................................................22 2NC LINK – A2 FREE MARKET (S)........................................................................................................................................23 2NC LINK – A2 TECH (1/2)......................................................................................................................................................24 2NC LINK – A2 TECH (2/2)......................................................................................................................................................25 2NC LINK – A2 SPACE.............................................................................................................................................................26 2NC LINK – A2 NUCLEAR WAR D/T.....................................................................................................................................27 **IMPACTS**............................................................................................................................................................................28 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (BIODIVERSITY)..................................................................................................................29 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (GENOCIDE)..........................................................................................................................30 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (POVERTY)............................................................................................................................31 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (TERRORISM).......................................................................................................................32 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (WAR).....................................................................................................................................33 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (WARMING)..........................................................................................................................34 2NC IMPACT – A2 HEGEMONY.............................................................................................................................................35 2NC IMPACT – A2 INNOVATION............................................................................................................................................36 **ETHICS**...............................................................................................................................................................................37 2NC ETHICS – A2 IMMORAL (1/2).........................................................................................................................................38 2NC ETHICS – A2 IMMORAL (2/2).........................................................................................................................................39 2NC ETHICS – A2 DON’T EVAL CONSEQUENCES.............................................................................................................40 2NC ETHICS – A2 PREDICTIONS K.......................................................................................................................................41 2NC ETHICS – A2 RACIST!.....................................................................................................................................................42 2NC ETHICS – A2 VALUE TO LIFE........................................................................................................................................43 **AFF ANS**.............................................................................................................................................................................44 2AC BLOCK (1/4)......................................................................................................................................................................45 2AC BLOCK (2/4)......................................................................................................................................................................46 2AC BLOCK (3/4)......................................................................................................................................................................47 2AC BLOCK (4/4)......................................................................................................................................................................48

Hingstman 21

ADI 8
Malthus 1NC – THE NEGATIVE STRATEGY DEATH CHECKS ARE THE ONLY WAY TO STEM OVERPOPULATION – EACH PERSON SAVED IS 7.6 IN THE CRUNCH. ROBBS, AID Analyst, 1987
Longitudinal Study #342

2 Abe

The resulting data are supportive of the hypothesis. In communities that have transgressed the local carrying capacity, lives saved come only at the expense of future generations. Other studies support this conclusion (Rogers, 1979). In the conditions of scarcity employed under GFRS, saved lives come at the expense of exponential reduction in the resource supply. This means a loss of 2.5 lives over a period of 30 years, for each present life. Other estimates range from 1.2 to 7.6 Under conditions of technological advancement, the loss may be even more severe since current resources become more productive to future generations.

ADI 8
Malthus 1NC – THE NEGATIVE STRATEGY

3 Abe

OVERPOPULATION CAUSES GENOCIDAL WARS THAT DESTROY CULTURAL DIVERSITY THAT CAUSES EXTINCTION. KODEL, M.D., family physician in private practice in Los Angeles, volunteer t for The Children's Nature Institute, 4
Gary S., World Future Society, Global Strategies Forum “Why Are We So Vulnerable?” http://www.wfs.org/kodel.htm

Overpopulation caused crowded living conditions with enhanced competition for scarce resources, which contributed to the development of a style of war unique to civilization: the destruction of human cultures causing reductions in human diversity - genocide - rendering humanity vulnerable to changes in man-made and earthly conditions leading to human extinction. In contrast, tribal warfare evolved as a way for tribes to preserve their cultural identities. By preventing tribes from overrunning each other, tribal warfare promotes human cultural diversity (the opposite effect of genocide), protects humanity from the risks of changing environmental conditions, and thus helps prevent human extinction.

ADI 8
Malthus 1NC – THE NEGATIVE STRATEGY

4 Abe

WE HAVE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE CARRYING CAPACITY – ABSOLUTE REVERENCE FOR HUMAN LIFE IRONICALLY LEADS TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE VERY THING HELD MOST SACRED. HARDIN, PROFESSOR EMERITUS HUMAN ECOLOGY AT UCSB, 1991
Garret, “From Shortage to Longage: Forty”, http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_from_shortage_to_longage.html

With a few or no exceptions close examination of the economy of nations that chronically suffer from starvation reveals that the production factors are already severely over-stressed. In Ethiopia, land that should not be farmed is farmed, with a resultant loss of soil; too many animals are kept on the pasture lands, leading to the loss of soil and the replacement of "sweet grass" by weeds; and bushes and trees are removed from steep slopes resulting in a loss of soil that ultimately makes the reestablishment of woody plants impossible. (Internationalists should note that soil lost from the mountains of Ethiopia becomes silt in Egypt's Lake Nasser, thus shortening the useful lifetime of the High Aswam Dam.) When a country is overpopulated-when its population is greater than the carrying capacity of its land, whatever standard of living is used in reaching a judgement saving lives today by direct gifts of food ensures that more lives will be lost tomorrow because of the increased environmental destruction made possible by the encouragement of population growth. The time-blind ideal, "Human life is sacred," is counterproductive. "'Sacred," like all old words, has many meanings and connotations. What we are concerned with here is its related meaning of sacrosanct or inviolable. When disputants say that human life is sacred they clearly mean that we should preserve every human being now living regardless of the cost, either now or in the future. Though not given to using emotionally charged words, an ecologist would be more inclined to say that the environment, not human beings, is sacrosanct. The moment this proposition is advanced the conventional moralist expostulates: "Oh! You mean you prefer the life of dickey-birds to human beings? You prefer redwood trees to people?" We have all heard such contemptuous questions. The questioner misses the point. Ecologists confer sacrosanctity on the carrying capacity of the environment in order to better the condition of men and women in the continuing future. When an ecological moralist proposes an Eleventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not transgress the carrying capacity," he is trying to improve the quality of life over a long period of time. Redwood trees and dickey-birds are seen as the symbols of the good life for human beings. Environmental extremists may talk of an undefined intrinsic value of the environment, but we need not follow them down this dubious rhetorical path. When we recommend that Ethiopians refrain from overgrazing their pastures and overharvesting their woody mountains we need not demand that they worship the landscape, merely that they take thought of what the environment will have to offer their descendants. A time-sensitive system of ethics cannot be blind to environmental values.

ADI 8
Malthus

5 Abe

**UNIQUENESS**

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC UNIQUENESS – GENERIC (__) THE NEWEST EVIDENCE CONCLUDES THAT PRIOR STUDIES ONLY UNDERESTIMATE THE PROBLEM. WITHOUT COERCIVE POPULATION CONTROL; THE EARTH WILL BE DEAD BY 2050. MCDOUGALL, Co-Chair of the Optimum Population Trust, AND GUILLEBAUD, Professor of Family Planning and Reproductive Health at University college of London, 7
Rosamund, an environmental research and campaigning group; John, “Too many people: Earth’s population problem, Optimum Population Trust, http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.earth.html, June 7

6 Abe

The Earth faces a future of rising populations and growing strains on the planet. Whatever else the future holds, significant population increase is inevitable and the current UN forecast of 9.2 billion by 2050 – itself a 40 per cent increase on the 6.7 billion in 2007 – may turn out to be an underestimate. The environmental damage resulting from population increase is already widespread and serious, ranging from climate change to shortages of basic resources such as food and water. By 2050, humanity is likely to require the biological capacity of two Earths. Without action, longages of humans – the prime cause of all shortages of resources – may cause parts of the planet to become uninhabitable, with governments pushed towards coercive population control measures as a regrettable but lesser evil than conflict and suffering. (__) EARTH HAS OVERSHOT ITS CARRYING CAPACITY; WE NEED TO BE AROUND 4 BILLION. LAFFERTY, SCIENCE REPORTER FOR THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 7
Mike, science reporter, Columbus Dispatch, “Too many people, not enough Earth; Scientists debate how much population the world can sustain,”

Every year, at least 91 million humans are born in excess of those who die. That's 1 billion people every 11 years. Some, however, argue that we are adept at adapting, and point to increased agricultural production and medical advances that fend off disease. Right now, Earth's carrying capacity is thought to be somewhere in the range of 4 billion to 5 billion people. There are 6.5 billion of us. In biology, the carrying capacity usually refers to the number of animals a given area can support with adequate food, shelter and territory or the space to reproduce.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC UNIQUENESS – AFRICA (1/2) (__) AFRICA IS ON THE BRING OF A MALTHUSIAN CRUNCH – CARRYING CAPACITY HAS BEEN OVERSHOT AND ONLY MASSIVE POPULATION REDUCTION CAN PREVENT CONTINENTAL CATASTROPHE. KATES, Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College, 4
Carol A., REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION, Environmental Values 13:1 February, http://www.ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/replib.pdf

7 Abe

Sub-Saharan Africa has the worst prognosis for environmental degradation, food shortages, disease and political instability and violence. Rapid population growth 22 will be a significant factor contributing to “undernourishment” in the region (FAO 2002). Even assuming an increase in agricultural output (by clearing forests and increasing use of irrigation and fertilizer), as well as greater equality in access to food, the absolute number of undernourished people is expected to rise in such extremely poor, high fertility countries as Angola, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Somalia (FAO 2002). The CIA report is blunt: “poor infrastructure and distribution, political instability, and chronic poverty will lead to malnourishment in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa”(CIA 2001:79). In 2000, Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for almost half of infectious disease deaths globally (CIA 2000). Sixty-five percent of all deaths in the region are caused by infectious diseases (CIA 2000). The CIA believes the most plausible scenario over the next 20 years is “deterioration, then limited improvement”, i.e. a worsening of the infectious disease threat, especially AIDS/HIV, for about 10 years, followed by a “fitful” decrease. However, because of high fertility and a large cohort of young people in developing countries, the CIA expects persistent infectious diseases which will have a disruptive effect on global economic, social, and political dynamics (CIA 2000). The CIA 2001 report on demographic trends projected three possible futures for the world in 50 years: Fertility Drives the Trends, Orderly Progress, and What Can Go Wrong Will Go Wrong. The last, most pessimistic, scenario will strike many as the most likely. It projects very “rough” times ahead, especially in the next 10-15 years, with increased democratization but a relatively shrinking middle class producing instability in the world and even a breakdown of order in some places (such as Pakistan or Lagos, Nigeria) where the U.S. might not be able to intervene. In 30 years, world income inequality may increase, producing “large pools of angry people”, especially young men, who may turn to violence and terrorism (CIA 2001:97). However, in all scenarios, the report imagines that the U.S. and other rich nations will remain relatively secure and affluent (“globalization has been successful” CIA 2001:97), protected by their military and economic power. The CIA does not seem concerned that environmental damage in developing countries could directly affect the ecosystems of developed countries, or trigger the “wholesale ecosystem collapse” which many scientists consider a genuine threat. It is instructive to compare the CIA’s scenario with the most recent UN Environmental Program projections of possible future (2032) outcomes of demographic trends and environmental “challenges”. The four UN scenarios are 1) Markets First (corporate-dominated global capitalist expansion), 2) Policy First (governments agree to meet specific environmental and social targets), 3) Security First ( a world divided between rich and poor, with escalating conflicts caused by environmental and social-economic stresses), and 4) Sustainability First (reinvigorated NGO’s promote global grass roots democracy, as affluent groups, especially in North America and Europe, rejecting the values of consumerism, competition, and individualism, turn away from a free-market approach to development and, with the aid of “breakthroughs” in biotechnology and nanotechnology, take actions to preserve the environment and create an “equitable” global distribution of wealth) (UNEP 2002:Ch.4).Three things are striking about these scenarios. First, the Security First and Markets First models seem to reflect the assumptions made in the CIA report, suggesting the “policy” and “sustainability” options were not being seriously considered by the academic, corporate and intelligence experts who advise that organization. Second, the notion that environmental sustainability could depend on a sudden and widespread shift from “individualistic” to altruistic values (UNEP 2002:332) is a sufficient reason to despair of the possibility of saving the ecosystem. It seems prudent to consider further options. And third, although in every scenario the UN report cites “continued population growth” as a significant, negative environmental factor (e.g. UNEP 2002: 333, 337, 338, 358, 361), the only “solution” given is a nonspecific reference to “policy actions and behavioral changes” which (somehow) “speed up the transition to slower [population] growth” in the Policy and Sustainability scenarios (UNEP 2002:323). However, “all of the scenarios assume continued growth in global population, tailing off ... as more countries pass through the demographic transition” (UNEP 2002:323). None of the scenarios suggest specific, effective measures to reduce population. It seems population programs have become so “politically incorrect” since Cairo that they cannot even be part of a speculative exercise! [CONTINUED—NO TEXT DELETED]

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC UNIQUENESS – AFRICA (2/2) [CONTINUED—NO TEXT DELETED]

8 Abe

The “sustainability” and “policy” scenarios for Africa assume stronger economic growth in that region (stimulated by a more “equitable sharing” of wealth), will create a demand for higher living standards which, coupled with high fertility, will actually produce more land degradation than a free market approach (UNEP 2002:358). Sustainability First has the second worst outcome for forests (after Security First), but “very little natural forest remains in Northern Africa in any of the scenarios” (UNEP 2002:358-9). “Pressures on biodiversity increase between 2002 and 2032 in all scenarios” (UNEP 2002:359). Under the Markets First and Security First Scenarios, nothing mitigates a Malthusian disaster in Africa. In short, it would seem that rapid population reduction offers the best, perhaps only hope of preventing further environmental destruction in the developing world. If that is not achieved, then altruistic re-distribution of wealth (or, at least massive food and medical aid) is likely to offer the best hope of improving the welfare of millions of people in poor countries.23

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC UNIQUENESS – INDIA (__) INDIA IS OVERPOPULATED – IT HAS THE FASTEST GROWING POPULATION IN THE WORLD. BYRANT, professor in the Department of Developmental and Cell Biology @ Berkley, 5
Peter J. (P.H.D), “BIODIVERSITY and CONSERVATION”, Hypertext Book, University of California, http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec24/b65lec24.htm

9 Abe

In India, where family-planning efforts have been less aggressive, the population is growing much faster. With 947 million inhabitants today, India may overtake China as the world's most populous nation, surpassing the 2 billion mark in 2025.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC UNIQUENESS – 2036 (__) THE CRUNCH IS COMING IN 2036. DUNCAN, INSTITUTE ON ENERGY AND MAN, 2000
Nov 13, The Peak of World Oil Production, www.dieoff.org

10 Abe

Australian writer Reg Morrison likewise foresees that overshoot and collapse is where humanity is headed. In his scenario (i.e. no formal model), the world population rises to about 7.0 billion in the 2036. Thence it plunges to 3.2 billion in 2090 — an average loss of 71.4 million people per year (i.e. deaths minus births) during 54 years. Given the current shape of the human population graph, those indicators also spell out a much larger and, from our point of view, more ominous message: the human plague cycle is right on track for a demographically normal climax and collapse. Not only have our genes managed to conceal from us that we are entirely typical mammals and therefore vulnerable to all of evolution's customary checks and balances, but also they have contrived to lock us so securely into the plague cycle that they seem almost to have been crafted for that purpose. Gaia is running like a Swiss watch. (Morrison, 1999)

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC UNIQUENESS – SPECIES EXTINCTION (__) SPECIES EXTINCTION IS ONE THOUSAND TIMES THE NORMAL RATE; WE ARE WITNESSING A MASS EXTINCTION. KATES, Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College, 4
Carol A., REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION, Environmental Values 13:1 February, http://www.ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/replib.pdf

11 Abe

Rates of species extinction, which appear to be accelerating, (UNEP 2002:298) have been described by leading scientists as “appalling” (WS 1997). On one estimate, one species extinction occurs every 20 minutes (Levin and Levin 2002:6). The background (“normal”) rate of species extinction, estimated from fossil records, is thought to be about [ONE] 1 bird or mammal species lost every 500-1000 years (UNEP 2002:121). “Estimates of present extinction rates range from 100 to 1,000 times normal, with most estimates at 1,000. The percent of bird (12), mammal (18), fish (5) and flowering plant (8) species threatened with extinction is consistent with that estimate. And the rates are certain to rise–and to do so exponentially–as natural habitats continue to dwindle” (Lovejoy 2002:70). The extinction rate for some organisms may be 1,000 to 10,000-times faster than background rates (Pimentel et al 1999:30). Ecologists estimate that half of all living bird and mammal species will be gone within 200 or 300 years (Levin and Levin 2002:6). These exceptional losses qualify the present as an era of “mass extinction” (Levin and Levin 2002:6). As “vast tracts of wilderness” vanish in the “not-sodistant future,” the “alteration and fragmentation of existing habitats ensures that any future radiation of mammals, for instance, will not include large forms such as rhinoceroses, apes and big cats....Human activities will likely increase [primate] rates of extinction....Such a wholesale shift in earth’s biota will impoverish the planet for many millions of years to come” (Levin and Levin 2002:7-8).

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC UNIQUENESS – A2 DENSITY

12 Abe

POPULATION DENSITY IS IRRELEVANT; CARRYING CAPACITY IS A MUCH MORE ACCURATE PREDICTOR OF ECOLOGICAL IMPACT BECAUSE IT ASSUMES LOCAL ENVIRONMENTS. EHRLICH, Bing Professor of Population Studies @ Stanford, AND EHRLICH, associate director and policy coordinator of the Center for Conservation Biology @ Stanford, 1990
Paul, and Anne, The Population Explosion, http://dieoff.org/page27.htm, p 37-40

Having considered some of the ways that humanity is destroying its inheritance, we can look more closely at the concept of "overpopulation." All too often, overpopulation is thought of simply as crowding: too many people in a given area, too high a population density. For instance, the deputy editor in chief of Forbes magazine pointed out recently, in connection with a plea for more population growth in the United States: "If all the people from China and India lived in the continental U.S. (excluding Alaska), this country would still have a smaller population density than England, Holland, or Belgium." *31 The appropriate response is "So what?" Density is generally irrelevant to questions of overpopulation. For instance, if brute density were the criterion, one would have to conclude that Africa is "underpopulated," because it has only 55 people per square mile, while Europe (excluding the USSR) has 261 and Japan 857. *32 A more sophisticated measure would take into consideration the amount of Africa not covered by desert or "impenetrable" forest. *33 This more habitable portion is just a little over half the continent's area, giving an effective population density of 117 per square mile. That's still only about a fifth of that in the United Kingdom. Even by 2020, Africa's effective density is projected to grow to only about that of France today (266), and few people would consider France excessively crowded or overpopulated. When people think of crowded countries, they usually contemplate places like the Netherlands (1,031 per square mile), Taiwan (1,604), or Hong Kong (14,218). Even those don't necessarily signal overpopulation—after all, the Dutch seem to be thriving, and doesn't Hong Kong have a booming economy and fancy hotels? In short, if density were the standard of overpopulation, few nations (and certainly not Earth itself) would be likely to be considered overpopulated in the near future. The error, we repeat, lies in trying to define overpopulation in terms of density; it has long been recognized that density per se means very little. *34 The key to understanding overpopulation is not population density but the numbers of people in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to the area's carrying capacity. When is an area overpopulated? When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources (or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the environment to support the population. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated. *35 By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation is already vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because, among other indications, its soils and forests are rapidly being depleted—and that implies that its carrying capacity for human beings will be lower in the future than it is now. The United States is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources and contributing mightily to the destruction of global environmental systems. Europe, Japan, the Soviet Union, and other rich nations are overpopulated because of their massive contributions to the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, among many other reasons. Almost all the rich nations are overpopulated because they are rapidly drawing down stocks of resources around the world. They don't live solely on the land in their own nations. Like the profligate son of our earlier analogy, they are spending their capital with no thought for the future.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC UNIQUENESS – A2 EMPIRICALLY DENIED (__) PRIOR FALSE PREDICTIONS DON’T DENY OUR DISAD – YOU CONFUSE FREQUENCY WITH PROBABILITY. POSNER, Former 7TH Circuit Judge and Published expert on shit from Environmental analysis to Anti-Trust Law, 6
Richard, Should We Worry about Overpopulation?, http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/10/should_we_worry.html

13 Abe

Concerns about overpopulation are ridiculed by conservatives because of the mistaken predictions by Paul Ehrlich (not to mention Thomas Malthus!) in his book The Population Bomb and by other anticapitalists since the first Earth Day (1970), and have spread to liberals because the only way to slow or stop the growth of the U.S. population is by curtailing immigration (e.g., the "fence"). Although I have been strongly critical of the shoddy arguments of Ehrlich and other doomsters (in my book Public Intellectuals), I believe that overpopulation is a serious issue and deserves dispassionate analysis. Just because the problem of overpopulation has been exaggerated in the past doesn’t mean it is not a problem today. The future may not resemble the past. The belief that the mistakes of Malthus, Ehrlich, and other past prophets of doom show that current concerns with overpopulation are unfounded is on a par with the belief that we shouldn't worry about terrorism because many fewer Americans have been killed by terrorists than in automobile accidents. Such arguments confuse frequencies (the past) with probabilities (the future).

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC UNIQUENESS – A2 POPULATION FORECASTING FAILS (__) POPULATION FORECASTING IS EMPIRICALLY SUCCESSFUL. COHEN, 1995
How many people can the earth support pg. 52

14 Abe

Despite their superficial similarities, the numbers of mathematics and the numbers of statistics (including those of demography, economics and all the natural and human sciences) are different beats. The numbers of mathematics come from logical calculations; the numbers either are exact or have known or estimable errors. The numbers of statistics come from empirical measurements; these numbers may have unknown errors, or estimates of error that are themselves vulnerable to error. For example, the 1990 census of the United States was estimated to undercount the population by 2.1 percent (an omission of more than five million people) until computer errors were discovered and statistical changes were made that lowered the estimated undercount to 1.6 percent (roughly four million). Uncertainty does not render statistical numbers worthless; even with uncertainty, statistical numbers are indispensable. They are often far more informative than verbal descriptions or intuitive hunches. (__) LINKS TO THE AFF -- THE AFFIRMATIVE LOGIC MAKES THEIR CASE INDETERMINATE, WE WIN ON PRESUMPTION. COHEN, 1995
How many people can the earth support pg. 52

The good news for demographers is that they are not the only forecasting professionals without a crystal ball. Political, economic, technological and cultural forecasts are also prone to error, not to mention forecasts of epidemics, volcanoes and the weather. Nathan Keytiz, a mathematical demographer at Harvard, observed: “Demographers can no more be held responsible for inaccuracy in forecasting population twenty years ahead than geologists, meteorologists, or economists who fail to announce earthquakes, cold winters, or depressions twenty years ahead. What we are responsible for is warning one another and our public what the error of estimates is likely to be.” Even that is difficult, because demographic projection techniques omit major factors that influence population change.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC UNIQUENESS – A2 SIMON

15 Abe

(__) SIMON IS AN ASS HAT. (A.) SIMON’S ARGUMENT IS PREMISED UPON A LOGICAL FALLACY DISPROVING THE ENTIRETY OF HIS CRITICISM. DALY, ecological economist and professor at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland, 1991
Herman, “A review of Julian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource,’ Steady State Economics, Island Press, pp282-289, http://dieoff.org/page27.htm

The fallacy concerning the copper is obscured by the strange fact that Simon begins with a correct distinction regarding infinity of distance and infinity of divisibility of a finite distance, and then as soon as he moves from one-inch lines to copper with nothing but the word "similarly" to bridge the gap, he forgets the distinction. It would be a wonderful exercise for a class in freshman logic to find the parallel between Simon's argument and Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. Recall that Zeno "proved" that Achilles could never catch up with a tortoise that had a finite head start on him. While Achilles traverses the distance from his starting point to that of the tortoise, the tortoise advances a certain distance, and while Achilles advances this distance, the tortoise makes a further advance, and so on, ad infinitum. Thus Achilles will never catch up. Zeno's paradox confounds an infinity of subdivisions of a distance, which is finite, with an infinity of distance. This is exactly parallel to what Simon has done. He has confused an infinity of possible boundary lines between copper and noncopper with an infinity of amount of copper. We cannot, he says, make an "appropriate count" of copper because the set of all resources can be subdivided in many ways with many possible boundaries for the subset copper because resources are "infinitely" substitutable. Since copper cannot be simply counted like beans in a jar, and since what cannot be counted is not finite, it "follows" that copper is not finite, or copper is infinite. Simon has argued from the premise of an "infinite" substitutability among different elements within a (finite) set to the conclusion of the infinity of the set itself. But no amount of rearrangement of divisions within a finite set can make the set infinite. His demonstration that mankind will never exhaust its resource base rests on the same logical fallacy as Zeno's demonstration that Achilles will never exhaust the distance between himself and the tortoise. Simon's argument therefore fails even if we grant his premise of infinite substitutability, which gets us rather close to alchemy. Copper is after all an element, and the transmutation of elements is more difficult than the phrase "infinite substitutability" implies! Indeed, Simon never tells us whether "infinite substitutability" means infinite substitutability at declining costs, constant costs, increasing costs, or at infinite costs! Of course Simon could simply assert that the total set of all resources is infinite, but this would be a bald assertion, not a conclusion from an argument based on substitutability, which is what he has attempted. (B.) BAD DATA. DALY, ecological economist and professor at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland, 1991
Herman, “A review of Julian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource,’ Steady State Economics, Island Press, pp282-289, http://dieoff.org/page27.htm

But what about Simon's empirical evidence against resource finitude? It fares no better than his fallacious attempt at logical refutation. He leans heavily on two expert studies: "The Age of Substitutability" by Weinberg and Goeller (Science, February 20,1976), and Scarcity and Growth by Barnett and Morse.*1 His use of these studies is amazingly selective. From Weinberg and Goeller he quotes optimistic findings of "infinite" substitutability among resources, assuming a future low-cost, abundant energy source. This buttresses Simon's earlier premise of "infinite" subdivisibility or substitutability among resources. But it does not lend support to his fallacious conclusion that resources are infinite and therefore growth forever is possible. More to the point, however, is that Weinberg and Goeller explicitly rule out any such conclusion by stating in their very first paragraph that their "Age of Substitutability" is a steady state. It assumes zero growth in population and energy use at the highest level that Weinberg and Goeller are willing to say is technically feasible. And they express serious reservations about the social and institutional feasibility of maintaining such a high consumption steady state. Furthermore, the levels envisioned by Weinberg and Goeller, though cornicopian by general consent, are quite modest by Simon's standards: world population in the Age of Substitutability would be only 2.5 times the present population, and world energy use would be only 12 times present use. This implies a world per-capita energy usage of only 70 percent of current U.S. per capita use. The very study that Simon appeals to for empirical support of his unlimited growth position explicitly rejects the notion of unlimited growth—a fact that Simon fails to mention.

ADI 8
Malthus

16 Abe

**LINKS**

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC LINK – LINEAR

17 Abe

(__) THE IMPACT’S LINEAR – EVERY PERSON SAVED, COSTS TEN MORE IN THE CRUNCH. EHRLICH, Bing Professor of Population Studies @ Stanford, AND EHRLICH, associate director and policy coordinator of the Center for Conservation Biology @ Stanford, 1974
Paul R. and Anne H., “Misconceptions, Proquest New York Times Historical, June 16, pg. 241

Furthermore, there are other pernicious fallacies in the “what we as Americans can do about the world population problem” game. Let’s start with a fallacy that the authors helped to create—the idea that we might suc-cessfully pressure govern-ments into launching effective population control programs. In the first edition of our book “The Population Bomb,” it was suggested that the United States try to use its food aid as a lever to get recalcitrant governments moving on population control programs. The logic then (as today) was impeccable. If you deluded people into thinking that either the U.S. could (or would) supply food in perpetuity for an number of people, you were doing evil. Sooner or later, population growth would completely outstrip the capacity of the United States or any other nation to supply food. For every 1,000 people saved today, perhaps 10,000 would die when the crunch came. Simply sending food to hungry nations with population explo-sions is analogous to a physician prescribing aspirin as the treatment for a patient with operable cancer—in deferring something unpleasant, disaster entrained. Yes, send the food—but insist that population control measures be instituted. But despite the logic, no on in the U.S. Government paid the slightest heed to that suggestion (or tolerated proposals by Wil-liam and Paul Paddock in their 1968 book, “Famine—1975!”), and the point is now moot, since we have no more sur-plus food. (__) EACH INDIVIDUAL IS CRITICAL – EVERY RESOURCE MATTERS IN THE CRUNCH. BROWN, PhD, 6
Paul, NOTES FROM A DYING PLANET, page 141

The really bad news is that the two younger populations increase in size for about 30 years because major portions of their populations are younger than the child-bearing age of 25 at the time they all shift to the one-child rule. This is disastrous because the more people there are during this period, the more damage they do to their environment, and the fewer resources will be left for the survivors, if any, one or two centuries from now. For every person, for every year that a population remains unsustainable, they inflict more damage.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC LINK – DISEASE (__) DISEASE SPREAD CHECKS POPULATION EXPANSION. HARDIN, PROFESSOR EMERITUS HUMAN ECOLOGY AT UCSB, 1991
Garret, “From Shortage to Longage: Forty Years in the Population Vineyards”, http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_from_shortage_to_longage.html

18 Abe

The potential of exponential growth in the human population is a standing threat of human welfare. Until very recently, however, this threat was mitigated by the sporadic eruption of such crowd-diseases as dysentery, cholera and plague which, at their worst, could wipe out a quarter to a half of a population in a year or two. Crowd-diseases were the most important negative feedbacks of the Malthusian demostat. Sanitation and modern medicine have greatly weakened the power of disease as an effective controller of population size. When external controls are eliminated, humanity must then face the problem of devising alternative controls that are internal to the species. In the past two centuries much effort has been expended looking for acceptable internal population controls-so far without much success. This daunting problem remains to be solved.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC LINK – FAMINE

19 Abe

(__) FAMINE IS AN IMPORTANT POPULATION CHECK – ONLY WAY TO PRESERVE CARRYING CAPACITY IN THE FACE OF RISING GREENHOUSE GASES AND DEFORESTATION. CAIRNS, 4
John, Tribute to Garrett Hardin, The Garrett Hardin Society, http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/tributes/tr_cairns_2004mar.html

When advocating living within limits, Hardin felt that the engineering principle of a "safety factor" would reduce the damage of episodic or stochastic events. Climate change occurs naturally, but greenhouse gases and deforestation have probably accelerated the rate of change. Hardin's lifeboat ethics-a lifeboat is limited in capacity and every nation has a limited carrying capacity-serves as a useful metaphor for a crowded world with rapidly dwindling natural resources. He acknowledged that the exact limit is a matter for argument, but already heard are calls for help from overpopulated countries and many individuals seeking (and usually getting) admission to less crowded "lifeboats." Hardin listed three possibilities of how their calls should be answered (Hardin 1974): (1) take all the needy into the lifeboat and swamp it; (2) if the lifeboat has unused excess capacity, use it at the risk of eliminating the safety factor (how are the ones chosen who are allowed on the lifeboat and what is said to those who are excluded?); (3) admit no additions to the lifeboat and preserve a small safety factor (Hardin notes that this solution would be abhorrent to people who would feel guilty about their own good luck). Hardin's suggested reply to those advocating rescue is simple: Get out and yield your place to others. Hardin (1963) replaced the widely used ecological statement that "everything is connected to everything else" with what the editors of Fortune called Hardin's Law: "We can never merely do one thing." This short sentence requires that one search any action or inaction for its unintended effects. Hardin contended that "and then what?" be asked over and over again to more accurately estimate both intended and unintended consequences of humankind's actions. He was a strong supporter of and commentator on Kenneth Boulding's dismal and utterly dismal theories of economics. The dismal theory states that, if the only check on the growth of population is starvation and misery, then no matter how favorable the environment or how advanced the technology, the population will grow until it is miserable and starves. The utterly dismal theory states that, if the only check on population growth is starvation and misery, then any technological improvement will have the ultimate effect of increasing the sum of human misery since it permits a larger population to live in precisely the same state of misery and starvation as before the change. Although Boulding first proposed both these theories in 1956 and Hardin reinforced them in 1968, the dangerous expectation still exists that a technological solution can be found to every problem. Hardin devoted his entire professional career to analyzing these and many other related issues. Nevertheless, he believed that knowledge alone will not move nations; astonishing and unforeseen events will be required for humanity's education. Persuasive, mounting evidence indicates that humankind now exists on the slope of logarithmic curves unprecedented in human history. Hardin persistently emphasized that infinite growth cannot occur on a finite planet and continually urged humankind to confront the finite limitations of Earth and the concept of optimal population size.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC LINK – POLLUTION (__) POLLUTION IS A CRITICAL DEATH CHECK, ACCOUNTS FOR 40% OF GLOBAL DEATHS. PIMENTAL ET AL, 1998

20 Abe

David, Maria Tort, Linda D’Anna, Anne Krawic, Joshua Berger, Jessica Rossman, Fridah Mugo, Nancy Doon, Michael Shriberg, Erica Howard, Susan Lee, and Jonathan Talbot. Professor of Entomology at Cornell. “Ecology of Increasing Disease Population growth and environmental degradation” http://dieoff.org/page165.htm

Based on current growth rates, the world’s population will double to 12 billion in the next 50 years, intensifying pollution and disease problems. The US population alone will double to 540 million during the next 70 years (PRB 1996, USBC 1996). Environmental problems are already particularly severe in urban areas of the world, in which the number of people continues to double especially quickly (i.e., every 20-25 years). By the turn of the century, according to projections, more than one-half of the world's population will live in cities that have more than 1 million people, and by 2025, two-thirds of the world's population will have settled in large urban areas (WRI 1994). Densely crowded urban environments, especially those without adequate sanitation, are of great public health concern because they are sources of disease epidemics (Iseki 1994). For example, dengue fever -- spread by the mosquito Aedes aegypti, which breeds in tin cans, old tires, and other water-holding containers -- is already expanding rapidly in crowded tropical cities (Lederberg et al. 1992). Dengue fever has increased dramatically since 1980, with 30-60 million dengue infections now occurring each year (Table 1; Monath 1994). Based on the increase in air, water, and soil pollutants worldwide, we estimate that 40% of human deaths each year result from exposure to environmental pollutants and malnutrition. These deaths are in addition to the toll taken by infectious diseases. Automobile use and energy consumption, which are steadily increasing

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC LINK – A2 AGRICULTURE (__) AGRICULTURE CAN’T RESOLVE POPULATION PRESSURES. (A.) CAUSES DEFORESTATION WHICH CRUSHES GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY. KATES, Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College, 4
Carol A., REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION, Environmental Values 13:1 February, http://www.ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/replib.pdf

21 Abe

Most of the degraded agricultural land has been replaced by removing forests. Agriculture accounts for 60% to 80% of deforestation (Pimentel et al 1997:10). A CIA assessment of long-term demographic trends (which was based on an October 2000 conference of experts from academia, business, and the intelligence community), noted that “Tropical forests are vanishing at the rate of 250 acres per minute”(CIA 2001:77). Further, nearly half of the world’s original forest cover has been lost in the last 50 years, and each year about 16 million hectares of virgin forest are “cut, bulldozed, or burned”(CIA 2001:77). Since about 60% of the world’s population growth this decade will occur in countries with tropical forests, the report expects this population pressure to produce “accelerating destruction of forests” (CIA 2001:76). A combination
of demand for wood for cooking and heating, a need for more crop land, and demand for wood in developed countries ensure that “forests will continue to be destroyed at an alarming rate”(CIA 2001:77). Deforestation is a major threat to biodiversity. It is worth repeating the RAND 2000 projection that current rates of forest clearing would destroy one-quarter of all species on Earth within the next 50 years.” Tropical rainforests are a particularly significant loss, because they contain anywhere from half to 90% of all terrestrial species (UNPD2001a:21). Species are also being lost because of pollution, pesticide use, urbanization, and other human activities: “Environmental pressure from the human population is the prime destructive force on earth and is the primary cause of reduced biodiversity” (Pimentel et al 1999:30).

(B.) RELIES ON FOSSIL FUELS WHICH ARE UNSUSTAINABLE. KATES, Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College, 4
Carol A., REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION, Environmental Values 13:1 February, http://www.ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/replib.pdf

In developed countries, intensive farming techniques require massive amounts of fossil energy for fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, and machinery. In developing countries, fossil energy is used primarily for fertilizers and irrigation (Pimentel et al 1997:11). In 1991, the US Dept. of Energy projected at (then) current pumping rates the US would exhaust its oil reserves in 15-20 years (Pimentel and Giampietro 1994:3; Pimentel et al 1997:11). The world oil supply has been projected to last about 50 years at (1994) current pumping rates (Pimintel et al 1999:7). Oil production is expected by some experts to peak about 2004,21 unless new reserves are discovered (Pimentel et al 1999:27). This means prices will rise, with serious implications for developing countries which rely heavily on fossil energy for fertilizer and irrigation (Pimentel et al 1997:12). (C.) NOT ENOUGH WATER KATES, Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College, 4
Carol A., REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION, Environmental Values 13:1 February, http://www.ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/replib.pdf

Economists have proposed agricultural intensification, primarily through more irrigation and fertilization, to increase crop yields. However, there are ecological limits on both methods. Surface water and groundwater, refilled by rainfall, each provide half of freshwater supply in the world. Groundwater resources are renewed very slowly, usually at about 1% per year (Pimentel et al 1994:354). “Even though the total amount of water made available by the hydrologic cycle is enough to provide the current population with adequate fresh water–most of this total water is concentrated in specific regions....Water demand [in 1993] already far exceeds supplies in nearly 80 nations....”(Pimentel et al 1999:24). About 40% of people in the world live in regions that compete for fresh water supplies (Pimentel and Giampietro 1994:2). In the US, groundwater is being depleted at an unsustainable 25% above replacement level (Pimentel et al 1994:354; Pimentel et al 1999:25). The 2001 CIA report estimates that by 2025, 48 countries containing 3 billion people, will face freshwater shortages, and 20 countries of the Near East and North Africa have the worst prospects. “In those areas, water supplies could run out by 2100 if per capita consumption and excessive use in agriculture are not controlled....”(CIA 2001:77). Currently, about 87% of the world’s fresh water is consumed or used up by agriculture and, thus, is not recoverable (Pimentel et al 1994:353-4; Pimentel et al 1997:10). Water supplies are also threatened by pollution from pesticides, fertilizers and sediments, toxic chemicals and sewage (Pimentel et al 1994:354-5). Ocean water desalinization is not a viable source of fresh water because the process is energy intensive and economically impractical (Pimentel et al 1999:25). “Some technologists, like Julian Simon (1996), believe that human population growth will not cause any shortage of water and other resources because we have the technologies to provide for the needs of an unlimited population. It would indeed be a wonderful achievement to see these technologists produce crops without water!”(Pimentel et al 1999:32). The 2001 CIA report concludes: “water availability is likely to become one of the most pressing and contentious resource issues of this century....This situation will only be exacerbated by population growth” (CIA 2001:77).

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC LINK – A2 AQUACULTURE

22 Abe

(__) AQUACULTURE IS UNSUSTAINABLE – WE’RE ON THE BRINK OF COMPLETE FISHERY COLLAPSE. KATES, Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College, 4
Carol A., REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION, Environmental Values 13:1 February, http://www.ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/replib.pdf

The FAO also acknowledges that environmental factors are expected to limit the supply of fish, because by 2000 “threequarters of ocean fish stocks were overfished, depleted or exploited up to their maximum sustainable yield”(FAO 2002). However, they expect aquaculture to continue to grow rapidly (FAO 2002). Aquaculture is also being promoted by the Malaysia-based WorldFish Center and the International Food Policy Research Institute, which issued a report on declining fish yields in preparation for a conference (“Fish for All Summit”) in November, 2002 (World Fish Center 2002). 20 Ecologists, however, have questioned the sustainability of aquaculture (Rees 2002:29-31). Although bland accounts of declining fish yields might suggest a limited period of conservation can restore “fish stocks,” a major study directed by Dr. Daniel Pauly of the University of British Columbia Fisheries Center (the Sea Around Us project), concluded that the North Atlantic ocean is heading towards a “fisheries collapse”- in effect, losing its ability to sustain further catches. Over the past 50 years catches of cod, tuna, haddock, flake and flounder have fallen by more than half (Pauly 2002). The research reports are available at http://www.saup.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/reports.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC LINK – A2 FREE MARKET (S)

23 Abe

(__) MARKET ECONOMIES AND COMPLEX SYSTEMS CREATE DISCONTINUITIES THAT RISK EXTINCTION. DOBKOWSKI, Prof Relig. Studies @ Hobart & William Smith AND WALLIMANN, Prof Sociology, Economics & Social Policy @ U. of Applied Sciences, Finland, 2
Michael & Isidore, ed, On The Edge of Scarcity, Syracuse Univ. Press , p. xxvii-xxviii

It seems evident now that there will he a temporal conjunction of four sizable bottlenecks: population, land, energy, and environmental carrying capacity. All of them are so intricately related that they form a system complexity whose very balance has never been so delicate vet so important to our survival. Therefore, we must also distinguish between bottlenecks that present continuous hut stable challenges and the ones that represent discontinuous and unstable challenges. Population growth, for example, is a challenge with great continuity. However, as we approach the question of energy and land, particularly if environmental pressures are included, we can increasingly expect challenges characterized by discontinuity. Even though energy resources may not be depleted, the supply of energy could for technological or political or economic reasons become highly discontinuous. Agricultural land may increasingly go out of commission in a discontinuous way, be it because of events such as droughts, floods, erosion, or drastic overuse. As the system reaches an ever greater complexity, and as survival hinges ever more and with small margins on this complexity, any jolt to the system is bound to make survival more immediately a matter of life and death. Furthermore, the jolts emitted by the economic system are also of importance, for production factors such as population, land, energy, as well as many environmental constraints are mediated and coordinated by markets. Markets, however, are also known to have a great deal of discontinuity owing to the anonymous number of their participants and the unforeseeable outcome produced by their myriad market interactions. Thus, the capitalist market, the very technique chosen to manage survival, is itself a threat to survival, as is exemplified by speculation, recessions, and depressions, booms and busts. Market dynamics themselves upset the delicate balance among land, energy, population, and the environment, and thereby directly determine survival and death rates. Additionally, techniques to ensure continuity in a world of random but significant disturbances may break down. Already insurance companies suspect that a number of weather-related events may have ceased to be sufficientlv random or insignificant or both to be insured. The private market insurance system may soon prove unable to ensure against certain ecosystem risks. The instability would thereby increase, leaving politics as the last potential guarantor of continuity and stability, as is already the case with atomic power plants, where no private insurer is willing to cover the entire risk, nor could such risk be covered. However, how many big risks, should the event and the scarcity associated with them occur, can the political system handle before solidarity breaks down, instability increases, conflicts grow, and massive death results? (__) EVEN ASSUMING EVERY COUNTRY ADOPTED FREE MARKET POLICIES AND THOSE POLICIES SUCCEEDED IN PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH WE WOULD STILL NEED FIVE ADDITIONAL EARTHS TO MAINTAIN RESOURCE DEMANDS. KATES, Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College, 4
Carol A., REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION, Environmental Values 13:1 February, http://www.ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/replib.pdf

The second objection is that even if every nation on the planet rapidly adopted “efficient” free market and free trade policies, and even assuming such policies “worked” to accelerate global economic growth, the result, given current and, certainly, projected population levels, would be an impossibly large ecological deficit. Humanity’s ecological footprint has been estimated to exceed long-term global carrying capacity as much as 40% (Rees 2002:40).16 Humanity currently appropriates an unsustainable 25-35% of coastal shelf primary production (Rees 1996:198), and over 50% of the Sun’s energy captured by the entire plant biomass on Earth each year ( Pimentel et al 1999:30). William Rees estimated that if the world population of 5.8 billion (in 1996) lived at unsustainable North American consumption levels, two additional planet Earths would be required to accommodate the ecological load. With a population of 10 or 11 billion, 5 additional Earths would be needed simply to maintain the present rate of ecological decline (Rees 1996:210).

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC LINK – A2 TECH (1/2)

24 Abe

(__) TECH WILL STOP ADVANCING – WE’RE ON THE BRINK OF A NEW DARK AGE. NEW SCIENTIST 7-2-5 (www.newscientist.com) But according to a new analysis, this view couldn’t be more wrong: far from being in technological nirvana, we are fast approaching a new dark age. That, at least, is the conclusion of Jonathan Huebner, a physicist working at the Pentagon’s Naval Air Warfare Center in China Lake, California. He says the rate of technological innovation reached a peak a century ago and has been declining ever since. And like the lookout on the Titanic who spotted the fateful iceberg, Huebner sees the end if innovation looming dead ahead. His study will be published in Technological Forecasting and Social Change. It’s an unfashionable view. Most futurologists say technology is developing at exponential rates. Moore’s law, for example, foresaw chimp densities (for which read speed and memory capacity) doubling every 18 months. And the chip makers have lived up to it’s predictions. Building on this, the less well-known Kurzweil’s law says that these faster, smarter chips are leading to even faster growth in the power of computers. Developments in genome sequencing and nanoscale machinery are racing ahead too, and internet connectivity and telecommunications bandwidth are growing even faster than computer power, catalyzing still further waves of innovation. But Huebner is confident of his facts. He has long been struck by the fact that promised advances were not appearing as quickly as predicted. “I wondered if there was a reason for this,” he says. “Perhaps there is a limit to what technology can achieve.” In an effort to find out, he plotted major innovations and scientific advances over time compared to world population, using the 7200 key innovations listed in a recently published book, The History of Science and Technology (Houghton Mifflin, 2004). The results surprised him. Rather than growing exponentially, or even keeping pace with population growth, they peaked in 1873 and have been declining ever since (see Graphs). Next, he examined the number of patents granted in the US from 1790 to the present. When he plotted the number of US patents granted per decade divided by the country’s population, he found the graph peaked in 1915. The period between 1873 and 1915 was certainly an innovative one. For instance, it included the major patent-producing years of America’s greatest inventor, Thomas Edison (1847-1931). Edison patented more than 1000 inventions, including the incandescent bulb, electricity generation and distribution grids, movie cameras and the phonograph. Medieval future Huebner draws some stark lessons from his analysis. The global rate of innovation today, which is running at seven “important technological developments” per billion people per year, matches the rate in 1600. Despite far higher standards of education and massive R&D funding “it is more difficult now for people to develop new technology”, Huebner says Extrapolating Huebner’s global innovation curve just two decades into the future, the innovation rate plummets to medieval levels. “We are approaching the ‘dark ages point’, when the rate of innovation is the same as it was during the Dark Ages,” Huebner says. “We’ll reach that in 2024.” But today’s much larger population means that the number of innovations per year will still be far higher than in medieval times. “I’m certainly not predicting that the dark ages will reoccur in 2024, if at all,” he says. Nevertheless, the point at which an extrapolation of his global innovation curve hits zero suggests we have already made 85 per cent of the technologies that are economically feasible. (__) AT WORST, WE NEED A 50% REDUCTION IN ECOSYSTEM CONSUMPTION – NO COMING TECH ACHIEVES NEAR THAT. KATES, Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College, 4
Carol A., REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION, Environmental Values 13:1 February, http://www.ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/replib.pdf

There are at least two major ecological objections to this growth prescription. First, ecologists have vigorously contested the claim that technology can provide substitutes for all scarce, and critical, resources, and that food production in particular can keep pace with population growth without unacceptable environmental damage. Of course it’s always possible that some new technologies will emerge to mediate the environmental impact of population and consumption.15 However, ecologists have estimated that an absolute reduction of up to 50% in the human load currently imposed on ecosystems would be required for ecological sustainability, and that high income countries would have to reduce their ecosystem demands by 80% or more to create “ecological space” for growth in developing countries (Rees 2002:41). Technology to achieve this goal does not appear to be on the horizon. Therefore, prudence would suggest a direct focus on eco-compatible population and consumption levels. If the economic optimists turn out to be right, efforts to reduce population and consumption will have made the planet healthier and less crowded. But if they are wrong, the planet, and our own species among others, will pay an unacceptable price for growth

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC LINK – A2 TECH (2/2) (__) TECHNOLOGY WILL INEVITABLY FAIL TO PRODUCE – ONLY A POSSIBILITY TO DELAY THE CRUNCH. CATTON, Professor Emeritus at Washington State University, 1998
William R, Negative Population Growth, http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/03/malthus-more-relevant-than-ever.html

25 Abe

Malthus was not wrong in the ways commonly supposed. From his 18th century perspective he simply had no basis for seeing the human ability to "overshoot" carrying capacity. It was inconceivable to Malthus that human societies could, by taking advantage of favorable conditions (new technology, abundant fossil fuels), temporarily increase human numbers and appetites above the long-term capacity of environments to provide needed resources and services. But it is inexcusable today not to recognize the way populations can sometimes overshoot sustainable carrying capacity and what happens to them after they have done it. Human economic growth and technology have only created the appearance that Malthus was wrong (in the way we used to learn in school). What our technological advances have actually done was to allow human loads to grow precariously beyond the earth's long-term carrying capacity by drawing down the planet's stocks of key resources accumulated over four billion years of evolution. (__) ERR NEGATIVE – THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CONCLUDES AGAINST THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNOLOGY TO PREVENT A POPULATION CRUNCH. THE INTERACADEMY PANEL ON INTERNATIONAL ISSUES, 5
“Joint Statement by 58 of The World’s Scientific Academies”, http://www.interacademies.net/?id=3547

Representatives of national academies of science from throughout the world met in New Delhi, India, from October 2427, 1993, in a "Science Summit" on World Population. The conference grew out of two earlier meetings, one of the Royal Society of London and the United States National Academy of Sciences, and the other and international conference organized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Statements published by both groups* expressed a sense of urgent concern about the expansion of the world's population and concluded that if current predictions of population growth prove accurate and patterns of human activity of the planet remain unchanged, science and technology may not be able to prevent irreversible degradation of the natural environment and continued poverty for much of the world.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC LINK – A2 SPACE

26 Abe

(__) DOESN’T SOLVE – CAN’T GET PEOPLE OFF THE PLANET FAST ENOUGH TO RESOLVE POPULATION PRESSURES. HARDIN, 1993
GARRETT, LIVING WITHIN LIMITS, Oxford University Press

For interstellar migration to prevent an increase of population on earth, people would have to be exported as fast as the world's population is increasing. (Worse: if we agree that the world is already overpopulated, people would have to be shipped off faster than this. But let us take a sunny view of things and ignore the possibility that the earth is already overpopulated.) (__) WE STILL WIN A SIZABLE IMPACT – THE DEATH OF OUR HOME WORLD WOULD BE KIND OF A DRAG – EVEN IF WE MAKE IT TO SPACE, BILLIONS WOULD STILL DIE ON EARTH – SURVIVAL WOULD BE PRETTY UNBEARABLE AFTER ALL THAT ANYWAY. (__) SPACE IS IMPOSSIBLE – NO INHABITABLE PLANETS, IF THERE ARE THEY’RE TO FAR AWAY AND ZERO POPULATION GROWTH IS A PREREQUISITE TO SPACE TRAVEL. DALEIDEN, 1999
The American Dream: Can it survive the 21st Century?, Prometheus Books, New York. p64-98, http://www.mnforsustain.org/pop_issues_policies_2_2_daleiden_j.htm#Space%20Colonization

One final note: some wild-eyed optimists believe that after filling the earth to capacity we will just move to other planets, sort of like the Europeans who moved to the new world of the Americas. We already know, however, that there are no inhabitable planets in our own solar system. (Of course we could build some ecopod to house a few dozen or perhaps even a few hundred people on a barren and inhospitable moon or perhaps Mars, but only at a huge cost.) To find a livable planet, we need to travel to other solar systems, and there is the rub. As Garrett Hardin explains, the nearest star to the earth is Alpha Centauri which is four light years away.* Traveling at the present rate of space speeds ―about twenty-five thousand mph― it would take 114,000 years to get to Alpha Centauri. Even assuming we could boost the speed to twenty-two million mph ―which may or may not be theoretically possible― it would take 125 years for the trip, i.e., four to five generations. And at the present birth rate, to keep the population of the earth from increasing further we would have to send off a quarter million people a day! Considering that it costs about $1 billion to build a submarine to house 140 sailors for a year, the cost of just one vehicle to house and support a quarter million people for 125 years is almost unimaginable. Even with economies of scale, one trillion dollars per spaceship would seem a bargain. And we would need to build one a day!89 * There is no evidence that Alpha Centauri has any planets ―in fact the odds are against it. The closest star with planets appears to be over eight light years away, and the likelihood that those planets are inhabitable is extremely small. Moreover, what if we discover there is already intelligent life on another planet? Does that give us the right to invade and conquer the indigenous people (assuming we could) so that we can export our surplus population? It never occurs to science fiction writers that from the perspective of any other planet with an indigenous population, we would be the space aliens. Perhaps only Native Americans can appreciate this irony. Finally, during those five generations of space travel, the voyagers would have to limit their population to replacement levels only (i.e., births - deaths = zero). But if we can get to zero population growth on the space vehicle, why not do it here on earth in the first place, saving all that absurd effort? It should be obvious to all but the most obtuse that the notion of populating distant solar systems to solve the earth's population problem is preposterous. Nevertheless, some people will clutch at any solution, no matter how absurd, to avoid taking the necessary actions dictated by circumstances.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC LINK – A2 NUCLEAR WAR D/T

27 Abe

(__) NUCLEAR WAR IMPACT ISN’T A DOUBLE TURN (A.) NUCLEAR WAR DECREASES CARRYING CAPACITY – DOESN’T PRESERVE FUTURE GENERATIONS. NISSANI, Professor at Wayne State, 1992
Moti, Lives in the Balance: The Cold War and American Politics 1945-1991, http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/pagepub/CH2.html

There will be fewer people and less industrial and commercial activity long after the war, hence some serious environmental threats will be ameliorated. By killing billions and destroying industrial infrastructures, nuclear war might, for instance, halt or slow down the suspected trend of global warming. On balance, however, the war's overall environmental impact will almost certainly be on the negative side. Radioactive fallout will contaminate soils and waters. We shall probably learn to adjust to these new conditions, perhaps by shunning certain regions or by carrying radioactivity meters everywhere we go the way our ancestors carried spears. Still, this will lower the quality of human life. Nuclear explosions might create immense quantities of dust and smoke. The dust and smoke might blanket, darken, and cool the entire planet. Although the extent of the damage is unclear,24 it would be far more severe during the growing season-late spring and summer in the northern latitudes. One Cassandran and controversial prediction sounds a bit like the eerie twilight described in H. G. Wells' The Time Machine. This "nuclear winter" projection forecasts freezing summertime temperatures,25 temporary climatic changes (e.g., violent storms, dramatic reductions in rainfall), lower efficiencies of plant photosynthesis, disruption of ecosystems and farms, loss of many species, and the death of millions of people from starvation and cold. However, even these pessimists expect a return to normal climatic conditions within a few years.26a,27 (B.) NUCLEAR WAR CAUSES THE EARTH TO EXPLODE – TOTAL EXTINCTION. CHALKO, MSc, PhD, Head of Geophysics Research, Scientific E Research P/L 3
Dr. Tom J., MSc., Ph.D., “Can a Neutron Bomb Accelerate Global Volcanic Activity?” http://sci-e-research.com/neutron_bomb.html

The TRUE danger of modern nuclear weaponry is that their neutron radiation is capable to induce global overheating of the planetary interior, global volcanic activity and, in extreme circumstances, may even cause the entire planet to explode.

ADI 8
Malthus

28 Abe

**IMPACTS**

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (BIODIVERSITY) (__) OVERPOPULATION CRUSHES BIODIVERSITY. CATTON, Professor Emeritus at Washington State University, 1998
William R, Negative Population Growth, http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/03/malthus-more-relevant-than-ever.html

29 Abe

We have trebled the human load upon this planet in my lifetime by using the planet unsustainably and this has caused a new era of extinction. According to a recent survey, a majority of American biologists regard the mass extinction of plant and animal species now resulting from human domination of the earth as a grave threat to humans in the next century (Warrick, 1998). We live in a world losing biodiversity at an unprecedented rate (Koopowitz and Kaye, 1983; Wilson, 1992:215 ff; Tuxill, 1998). It is high time to see that this consequence was implicit in the 1798 essay by Malthus. (__) BIODIVERSITY LOSS CAUSES HUMAN EXTINCTION. KATES, Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College, 4
Carol A., REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION, Environmental Values 13:1 February, http://www.ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/replib.pdf

Biodiversity loss may pose the greatest direct threat to human survival, if it destabilizes the biosphere and interferes with recycling of such vital elements as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus (Pimentel and Giampietro 1994:2). The end result of the accelerating extinction of plant and animal species could be “wholesale ecosystem collapse” (Brown 2000:8). Biodiversity is also essential to a productive and sustainable agriculture, and humans have no technology to substitute for most of the services provided by diverse species (wild biota) (Pimentel et al 1994:355; Pimentel et al 1997:13). Thus, there are ecological limits on the possibility of converting natural habitats into agricultural fields, and some experts have suggested protecting environmental quality by preserving about one-third of the terrestrial ecosystem as natural vegetation (Pimentel and Giampietro 1994:2; Pimentel et al 1994:355).

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (GENOCIDE) (__) OVERPOPULATION IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF GENOCIDE – RWANDA PROVES. DIAMOND, American evolutionary biologist and physiologist, 5
Jared, “Malthus in Africa: Rwanda’s Genocide”, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, http://www.ditext.com/diamond/10.html

30 Abe

Instead, I conclude that population pressure was one of the important factors behind the Rwandan genocide, that Malthus's worst-case scenario [328] may sometimes be realized, and that Rwanda may be a distressing model of that scenario in operation. Severe problems of overpopulation, environmental impact, and climate change cannot persist indefinitely: sooner or later they are likely to resolve themselves, whether in the manner of Rwanda or in some other manner not of our devising, if we don't succeed in solving them by our own actions. In the case of Rwanda's collapse we can put faces and motives on the unpleasant solution; I would guess that similar motives were operating, without our being able to associate them with faces, in the collapses of Easter Island, Mangareva, and the Maya that I described in Part 2 of this book. Similar motives may operate again in the future, in some other countries that, like Rwanda, fail to solve their underlying problems. They may operate again in Rwanda itself, where population today is still increasing at 3% per year, women are giving birth to their first child at age 15, the average family has between five and eight children, and a visitor's sense is of being surrounded by a sea of children.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (POVERTY) (__) OVERPOPULATION MAKES THE ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IMPOSSIBLE. BROWN, president of the Earth Policy Institute, 6
Lester, Plan B 2.0, http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/PB2preface.htm

31 Abe

In the original Plan B, we had a budget for eradicating poverty, but if the economy’s environmental support systems are collapsing, poverty eradication will not be possible. If croplands are eroding and harvests are shrinking, if water tables are falling and wells are going dry, if rangelands are turning to desert and livestock are dying, if fisheries are collapsing, if forests are shrinking, and if rising temperatures are scorching crops, a poverty eradication program—no matter how carefully crafted and well implemented—will not succeed.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (TERRORISM) (__) ROOT CAUSE OF TERRORISM IS OVERPOPULATION – PRESIDENTIAL STUDY CONCLUDES. CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON POPULATION AND SECURITY, 1
The Public Report of the Vice President's Task Force on Combatting Terrorism, http://www.population-security.org/issue_a.htm

32 Abe

Arguably the most authoritative work on terrorism was the February 1986 Report of the Vice President's Task Force on Combatting Terrorism, chaired by Vice President George Bush, Sr. Yet no mention of the study has appeared in the press since September 11, 2001. On that day, the George Bush Library archivist, Melissa Walker, pulled it from her files in anticipation of interest by the media. But not until October 29th did she receive her first request. It was from CRPS. This report concludes that the root cause of terrorism is overpopulation. This determination the Vatican no doubt finds highly offensive since all of the solutions to the population problem undermine papal authority. This report appears in its entirety.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (WAR) (__) STUDIES CONCLUDE DECREASING POPULATION HAS A LINEAR CORRELATION WITH A DECREASED RISK OF ETHNIC WAR AND TERRORISM. CINCOTTA, ENGELMAN, AND, ANASTASION, Senior Research Associates for Population Action International, 3
Richard, Robert and Daniele, “The Security Demographic - Population and Civil Conflict After the Cold War.” Population Action International. http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Fact_Sheets/FS23/Summary.shtml

33 Abe

Do the dynamics of human population — rates of growth, age structure, distribution and more — influence when and where warfare will next break out? The findings of this report suggest that the risks of civil conflict (deadly violence between governments and non-state insurgents, or between state factions within territorial boundaries) that are generated by demographic factors may be much more significant than generally recognized, and worthy of more serious consideration by national security policymakers and researchers. Its conclusions — drawn from a review of literature and analyses of data from 180 countries, about half of which experienced civil conflict at some time from 1970 through 2000 — argue that: During the last three decades of the 20th century, demographic transition — a population's shift from high to low rates of birth and death — was associated with continuous declines in the vulnerability of countries to civil conflicts (ethnic wars, antigovernment insurgencies and terrorism resulting in multiple deaths). This relationship suggests that a range of policies and programs that promote demographic transition by encouraging small, healthy and better educated families and longer lives will improve the prospects for political stability in developing countries and enhance global security in the future.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (WARMING) (__) OVERPOPULATION CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING – GREENHOUSE GASES ARE A PRODUCT OF HUMAN CONSUMPTION. BASNSAL, CNSNEWS STAFF WRITER, 7
Monisha, Group Calls for Population Control to Stop Global Warming, http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070418a.html

34 Abe

"Human population growth is the paramount environmental issue," Ric Oberlink, a spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization, told Cybercast News Service. "Global warming is a very serious problem, but it is a subset of the overpopulation problem," he said. Oberlink argued that an increase in the emission of "greenhouse gases" -- carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for climate change -- is a result of human activity, "like most environmental problems." Although one part of the equation is what people do, he said, the other part is how many there are. "If we had half as many people, we wouldn't have much of a climatic warming problem," argued Oberlink. (__) GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES THE EARTH TO EXPLODE. CHALKO, MSc, PhD, 1
Tom J., No second chance? Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?, NU Journal of Discovery, Vol 3, May, http://nujournal.net/core.pdf

Consequences of global warming are far more serious than previously imagined. The REAL danger for our entire civilization comes not from slow climate changes, but from overheating of the planetary interior. Life on Earth is possible only because of the efficient cooling of the planetary interior - a process that is limited primarily by the atmosphere. This cooling is responsible for a thermal balance between the heat from the core reactor, the heat from the Sun and the radiation of heat into space, so that the average temperature on Earth’s surface is about 13 degrees Celsius. This article examines the possibility of overheating and the ”meltdown” of the solid planetary core due to the atmospheric pollution trapping progressively more solar heat (the so-called greenhouse effect) and reducing the cooling rate of the planetary interior. The most serious consequence of such a ”meltdown” could be centrifugal segregation of unstable isotopes in the molten part of the spinning planetary core. Such segregation can ”enrich” the nuclear fuel in the core to the point of creating conditions for a chain reaction and a gigantic atomic explosion. Will Earth become another ”asteroid belt” in the Solar system?

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC IMPACT – A2 HEGEMONY (__) LARGE POPULATIONS AREN’T KEY TO WAR FIGHTING – TECH AND CONSCRIPTION SOLVE. BINKIN, senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies program at the Brookings Institution, 1990
Manning the American Military: Demographics and National Security, NPG Forum Series, http://www.npg.org/forum_series/manning_military.htm

35 Abe

Such concerns, however, can be readily discounted. First, even before recent events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, a replay of World War II between NATO and the Warsaw Pact that is, a protracted conventional conflict involving millions of troops was considered an extremely long shot. The betting among serious analysts was that any conventional military confrontation between the two sides would be measured in terms of days or weeks, rather than months or years, ending early either in negotiations or in escalation to nuclear conflict. In any case, few envisaged any situation that would require tens of millions of Americans to serve in the armed forces. But even if, against all odds, the nation was to get involved in a protracted war of attrition that would require a substantial expansion in the size of the armed forces, full mobilization would be ordered, conscription would be reinstituted and some 18 million American men in the 18 through 26 year cohorts would provide the initial pool of draftees, followed as necessary by men in the older age groups and perhaps expanded opportunities for American women to serve or, indeed, be conscripted into military services. In the extreme, a U.S. military force equal to that of the second World War (11 million) would now constitute less than 5 percent of the total population compared with close to 10 percent in that conflict. In short, the current size of the American population is more than adequate to support "worst-case" scenarios, provided that the nation is willing to reinstitute conscription. And, as Figure 1 shows, even at the "lowest" projections by the Census Bureau, total population size would not be an issue in the foreseeable future. The population projected for 2080, for example, while substantially smaller than the current figure, would still be larger than the population that sustained our armed forces during the second World War.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC IMPACT – A2 INNOVATION

36 Abe

(__) INNOVATION TURN IS STUPID – TWO REASONS 1) INCREASING POPULATION INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF SOCIOPATHS AND A YOUNG POPULATION ENCOURAGES GENOCIDAL EXTREMISM. 2) INCREASED COMPETITION DECREASES THE INCENTIVE TO INNOVATE. POSNER, Former 7TH Circuit Judge and Published expert on shit from Environmental analysis to Anti-Trust Law, 6
Richard, Should We Worry about Overpopulation?, http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/10/should_we_worry.html

Some people also believe that the larger the population, the more innovators there will be, assuming that a fixed percentage of the population consists of innovators, whatever the size of the population. This is a questionable argument for population growth, as it ignores the fact that a fixed percentage of the population presumably also consists of potential Hitlers and Stalins and Pol Pots, and thus the absolute number of these monsters grows with population growth. Moreover, a population increase that is due to a higher birth rate (as distinct from immigration) increases the number of young people in a society, who are impressionable and therefore more likely than older people to be drawn to extremist politics, including terrorism. In addition, greater competition among innovators may reduce the potential returns to each innovator by increasing the number of simultaneous innovations, and may thus reduce the incentives to innovate.

ADI 8
Malthus

37 Abe

**ETHICS**

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC ETHICS – A2 IMMORAL (1/2)

38 Abe

(__) CARRYING CAPACITY CONSTRAINS ETHICS – (A.) SUCCESSFULLY PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT IS THE FIRST OBLIGATION, CLAIMS OF THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE IGNORE THAT A STABLE ENVIRONMENT IS A PRECONDITION FOR HUMAN LIVELIHOOD. WE SHOULD SEEK TO PROMOTE ALL LIFE, NOT JUST HUMAN. THAT’S HARDIN. (B.) ERR NEGATIVE – WHAT CONSTITUTES AUTONOMY IS DEFINED BY THE CONDITION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT. HUMPHREY, 2
School of Politics, University of Nottingham, “Ecology, Democracy, and Autonomy: a Problem of Wishful Thinking,” essex.ac.uk

That there are ecological constraints on autonomy is, I assume, uncontroversial (although some prefer to frame them as ecological preconditions for it). As Edward Goldsmith has pointed out, humans living in industrial society cannot will themselves to be able to live by breathing polluted air and drinking contaminated water, beyond certain limits these things just will disable us. Autonomy, as already stressed, is always a matter of degree and always partial. Ecological limits do not, however, prevent us from conceptualizing autonomy in terms of the capacity described above; we merely have to accept that this capacity operates within ecological constraints. The ecological reconceptualization of autonomy has instead to offer an account of autonomy that ‘lets in’ non-human nature by granting it the relevant capacity (which of course will be different to the one above). This brings us back to the idea of ‘species life’, which seems to be the only account of autonomy on offer in the argument from principle. An entity possesses autonomy when it has the capacity to live according to its species’ natural proclivities. The right to be free to ‘live and blossom’ in your own way is justified in terms of protection of this capacity. (__) FUTURE GENERATIONS (A.) COMMUNAL OBLIGATION TO NOT HARM THOSE WHO WILL COME AFTER OURSELVES. MYERS, SEPTEMBER 5
Jenny, Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy, Lancaster University, Are prescribed limits to human population growth ethically defensible? www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/philosophy/awaymave/onlineresources/diss05/jenny%20myers.doc

I contend therefore, that the time has come to abandon anthropocentric models of ethics and consider our obligations to the future in terms of holistic communitarian interdependencies. As a social species, we have developed collective bonds which tie us to an extended community beyond our immediate families. Cultural and moral evolution has enabled us to widen our moral universe, recognizing common ideologies which serve to shape our very identities. At the same time, ecological science has illuminated the interdependent relationships which sustain life on Earth, in which humans play an essential part. As Leopold implored, it is time we extend our moral consideration to all species and systems, collectively ‘the land.’ Our obligations to future generations stem from our sense of common community, predicated upon our shared commitment to the Axiom of Future Value. Recognizing the impact human overpopulation has on the continuity of life on planet Earth, we are obligated to ensure the continuance of life is not undermined by our species’ incessant growth. We our obligated by our duties to future life as a whole to adopt considered population polices which encourage individuals to make informed reproductive choices in light of environmental consequences both now and in years to come. As de-Shalit says, “Although some people die and others are born, the same community remains, and the essence of that community is continuity and succession.” (B.) OUR OBLIGATION TO FUTURE GENERATIONS PRECEDES LOGIC AND SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED. GABA, 1999
Jeffrey, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law Environmental Ethics and Our Moral Relationship to Future Generations: Future Rights and Present Virtue

This leads to a conclusion that we should consider the future in our moral calculus because there is consensus that we should. Of course, no such conclusion is logically warranted. The fact that we may have some universally recognized concern for the future does not convert that concern into a moral imperative. Evolution may have developed a genetic predisposition to ensure the survival through time of our genetic endowment, but that does not mean that this fact of nature becomes a fact of morality. This conflation of "what is" with "what should be" (between "is" and "ought") has been described as the "naturalistic fallacy." n28 On the other hand, widely accepted consensus of the morality of a position may reflect a preexisting morality that individuals, through their capacity for moral "intuition," have expressed. n29 Although translating a general concern for future generations into a moral obligation may pass the risk and go straight to the certainty of tautology, so be it. For whatever reason, we humans accept (within undefined limits) this moral concern.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC ETHICS – A2 IMMORAL (2/2)

39 Abe

(__) ONLY EVALUATING OUR DA ALLOWS TRUE RESPECT FOR THE OTHER THROUGH MOURNING THEIR SACRIFICE – NOT CALCULATING ALL LIVES AS EQUAL IN EVALUATING POLICY DECISIONS MEANS DECISION MAKERS ARE SET UP FOR OPPRESSION. CUMMISKEY, Assoc Professor of Philosophy at Bates College, 1996
David, Kantian Consequentialism, pg. 140-196]

Consequentialism thus provides an indirect justification for our intuitive conviction that we should not demand that the innocent sacrifice themselves, and also that we should not sacrifice the innocent. Kant's moral theory, however, simply does not provide a more direct and indefeasible justification for deontological constraints. In principle, a conscientious Kantian moral agent may be required to kill one in order to save two. Nonetheless, if someone is unable to do so, this may well not be grounds for reproach. Similarly, if I cannot amputate a leg to save a life--either my own or that of another--I may not be blameworthy for my failure, although it is true that I should have done the nasty deed. Still, in such a situation I must try to force my attention on the good I am doing and thereby enable myself to act. Similarly, in the highly unusual case where it would truly be best to kill some to save others, a good person should also try to focus on the lives to be saved rather than becoming fixated exclusively on those who will be killed. Nonetheless, even though sacrificing some to save others is sometimes the right thing to do, one should still feel regret and mourn the people who are lost. After all, the goal is to save each and every person; thus, one should indeed feel the loss of even one. According to Kant, the objective end of moral action is the existence of rational beings. Respect for rational beings requires that in deciding what to do, one must give appropriate practical consideration to the unconditional value of rational beings and to the conditional value of happiness. Since agent-centered constraints require a non-value-based rationale, the most natural interpretation of the demand that one give equal respect to all rational beings leads to a consequentialist normative theory. We have seen that there is no sound Kantian reason for abandoning this natural consequentialist interpretation. In particular, a consequentialist interpretation does not require sacrifices that a Kantian ought to consider unreasonable, and it does not involve doing evil so that good may come of it. It simply requires an uncompromising commitment to the equal value and equal claims of all rational beings and a recognition that in the moral consideration of conduct, one's own subjective concerns do not have overriding importance.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC ETHICS – A2 DON’T EVAL CONSEQUENCES

40 Abe

(__) OVERPOPULATION REQUIRES EVALUATE OF CONSEQUENCES – MILL’S HARM PRINCIPLE SAYS IF WE CAN IDENTIFY ACTIONS THAT HURT OTHERS THEN WE MUST CALCULATE THE RESULTS OF OUR ACTIONS. MYERS, Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy @ Lancaster University, 2K5
Jenny N., Are prescribed limits to human population growth ethically defensible, http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/philosophy/awaymave/onlineresources/diss05/jenny%20myers.doc

John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle outlined the criteria for political interceding in the domain of personal and autonomous decision making normally regarded as the right of individual citizens. He asserted that individuals must relinquish personal freedom when the consequences of their actions will bring harm to other people. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. Mill’s Harm Principle specifically addressed the issue of reproduction in overcrowded nations, suggesting that reproductive freedoms, traditionally held to be private matters, become public issues concerning society as a whole when that society will bear the cost of an additional life. As I have shown, overpopulation now threatens to degrade the quality of life of all the Earth’s inhabitants. The severity of the situation warrants application of the Harm Principle compelling us to forgo certain individual liberties.

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC ETHICS – A2 PREDICTIONS K

41 Abe

(__) FORESIGHT, KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE GIVE US A GOOD ENOUGH IDEA THAT WE CAN MAKE ECOLOGICAL PREDICTIONS; ERR AFFIRMATIVE – WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO ADOPT A PRECAUTIONARY METHODOLOGY WHEN IT COMES TO ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS. MYERS, SEPTEMBER 5
Jenny, Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy, Lancaster University, Are prescribed limits to human population growth ethically defensible? www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/philosophy/awaymave/onlineresources/diss05/jenny%20myers.doc

Even postmodernists contend that uncertainty about future circumstances and acknowledgments of contemporary biases do not excuse inaction on inter-temporal effects of present-day environmental degradation. Gower writes, The generation to which we belong has some understanding, albeit conjectural, partial and uncertain in many respects, of the effects that our environmental policies will have upon future generations. On the assumption that those policies remain unchanged and that other relevant factors will vary in certain ways, we can make predictions about the circumstances in which the lives of future generations will be lived. We can anticipate the levels of ultra-violet radiation reaching the earth’s surface which will result from our use of chemicals which harm the earth’s protective ozone layer; we can anticipate rises in the sea-level as a result of the production of ‘greenhouse gases’ and the consequent ‘global warming’…No doubt some of these predictions are less reliable than others, and in every case our confidence depends upon how far into the future our anticipations extend. But though our understanding of the effects of our policies is incomplete…we are not thereby absolved from considering the justice of our policies in so far as they affect future generations. Uncertainty about future circumstances does not excuse inaction on any environmental issue. Too much political inaction has been justified by ‘insufficient scientific evidence’ in the face of real threats. These biases result from political and economic models promoting short-term thinking. Uncertainty about future conditions cannot be used to justify moral inaction either. Our foresight, knowledge of historical precedence, and scientific knowledge equip us with enough information to reasonably predict the outcomes of our decisions today while acknowledging the possibility of unforeseeable technological advancements and cultural changes. I believe, as Norton critiques Passmore’s argument, that ethical systems which ignore our responsibility to the whole of life reflect short-sighted anthropocentric prejudices and fall sort as “little more than an application of the individualistic bias of contemporary ethics... Passmore’s argument assumes individualism—that causing the deterioration of an environmental system can never be a moral issue—the argument will justifiably be rejected by environmentalists as unpersuasive and question-begging.”

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC ETHICS – A2 RACIST!

42 Abe

(__) OUR ARGUMENT ISN’T RACIST – WE HAVE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS, INACTION NOW MEANS COMPLETE ANNIHILATION OF AN ETHNIC GROUP LATER. HARDIN, Prof. of Human Ecology Emeritus, 1
Garett, Fall, The Social Contract, “Living on a Lifeboat”, http://www.thesocialcontract.com/ cgi-bin/showarticle.pl?articleID=1025&terms=%20

To be generous with one's own possessions is one thing; to be generous with posterity's is quite another. This, I think, is the point that must be gotten across to those who would, from a commendable love of distributive justice, institute a ruinous system of the commons, either in the form of a world food bank or that of unrestricted immigration. Since every speaker is a member of some ethnic group it is always possible to charge him with ethnocentrism. But even after purging an argument of ethnocentrism the rejection of the commons is still valid and necessary if we are to save at least some parts of the world from Environmental ruin. Is it not desirable that at least some of the grandchildren of people now living should have a decent place in which to live?

ADI 8
Malthus 2NC ETHICS – A2 VALUE TO LIFE (__) ONLY AN ETHIC THAT FOCUSES THE TOTAL COMMUNITY OF LIFE OFFERS A VALUE TO LIFE – HUMAN FOCUSED ETHICS CAN’T ACHIEVE PERSPECTIVE TO GENERATE OBJECTIVE VALUES. MYERS, Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy @ Lancaster University, 2K5
Jenny N., Are prescribed limits to human population growth ethically defensible, http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/philosophy/awaymave/onlineresources/diss05/jenny%20myers.doc

43 Abe

It is my contention that we have moral obligations to the community of life, acknowledging that life and the processes which engender it are intrinsically valuable. As human beings emerged from and now both shape and are shaped by this process, acting in order to ensure its continuance is undoubtedly in our best interest as a species. But I suggest that the value of life exists irregardless of our ability to asses its value. It has, after all, not been valued for much of human history. As Rolston writes, Something from a world beyond the human mind, beyond human experience, is received into our mind, our experience, and the value of that something does not always arise with our evaluation of it…Life and mind appear (through evolution) where they did not before exist, and with them levels of value emerge that did not before exist. A comprehensive environmental ethics reallocates value across the whole continuum. Value increases in the emergent climax but is continuously present in the composing precedents. The system is value-able, able to produce value. Human evaluators are among its products (Rolston 1998, pg. 510).

ADI 8
Malthus

44 Abe

**AFF ANS**

ADI 8
Malthus 2AC BLOCK (1/4) (__) NON UNIQUE – THE CRUNCH ISN’T COMING. POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE, 6
10 Reasons to Rethink ‘Overpopulation’, popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_40.pdf

45 Abe

World population is still growing and is expected to reach 9 billion by the year 2050. However, demographers agree that the era of rapid growth is over. Population growth rates peaked in the 1960s due to dramatic reductions in death rates and increased life expectancy. Since then, with increasing education, urbanization, and women’s work outside the home, birth rates have fallen in almost every part of the world. The average is now 2.7 births per woman. A number of countries, especially in Europe, are now concerned about declining population growth as many women have only one child. The UN projects that world population will eventually stabilize, falling to 8.3 billion in 2175 (__) ENVIRONMENTAL DOOMSAYERS ARE WRONG—CONSENSUS OF EXPERTS AGREE. SIMON, Robert H. Smith School of Business, 1994
Julian, University of Maryland, The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment, http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/faculty/jsimon/Ultimate_Resource/

It may well be that the state of thought about the effect of population on the environment, is at the same sort of intellectual juncture that thought about the effect of population on the standard of living was at one or two decades ago. The evidence is now available, and fair-minded scholars are beginning to change their views on environmental changes. Indeed, in chapter 00 you will read how William Baumol and Wallace Oates began by believing that the environment was deteriorating, but their detailed long-term statistical studies brought them to doubt their original view. To repeat, every forecast of the doomsayers has turned out flat wrong. Metals, foods, and other natural resources have become more available rather than more scarce throughout the centuries. The Famine 1975 forecast by the Paddock brothers that we would see famine deaths in the U.S. on television was followed by gluts in agricultural markets. After Paul Ehrlich's primal scream - "What will we do when the [gasoline] pumps run dry?" - there came gasoline cheaper than since the 1930s. The Great Lakes are not dead; instead they offer better sport fishing than ever. The main pollutants, especially the particulates which have killed people for years, have lessened in our cities. (__) NO CORRELATION BETWEEN POPULATION GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL COLLAPSE (A.) ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR POVERTY. POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE, 6
10 Reasons to Rethink ‘Overpopulation’, popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_40.pdf

A narrow focus on human numbers obscures the way different economic and political systems operate to perpetuate poverty and inequality. It places the blame on the people with the least amount of resources and power rather than on corrupt governments and economic and political elites. It ignores the legacy of colonialism and the continuing unequal relationship between rich and poor countries, including unfavorable terms of trade and the debt burden. It says nothing about the concentration of much wealth in a few hands. In the late 1990s, the 225 people who comprise the ‘ultra-rich’ had a combined wealth of over US $1 trillion, equivalent to the annual income of the poorest 47% of the world’s people. (B.) THE PROBLEM IS DISTRIBUTION, NOT LACK OF FOOD. POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE, 2K6
10 Reasons to Rethink ‘Overpopulation’, popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_40.pdf

Global food production has consistently kept pace with population growth, and today world agriculture produces 17% more calories per person than it did 30 years ago. There is enough food for every man, woman and child to have more than the recommended daily calorie intake. People go hungry because they do not have the land on which to grow food or the money with which to buy it. In Brazil, one percent of the land owners control almost half of the country’s arable land, and more land is owned by multinational corporations than all the peasants combined. Globally, more than 1.2 billion people earn less than $1 per day, making it difficult to afford enough food to feed a family. Many governments have failed to make food security a priority. In 2002, when at least 320 million people in India were suffering from hunger, the government tripled its rice and wheat exports. The U.S. is the largest food producer in the world, yet more than one in ten American households are either experiencing hunger or are at the risk of it.

ADI 8
Malthus 2AC BLOCK (2/4) (__) OVERPOPULATION FEARS ARE RACIST. POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE, 6
10 Reasons to Rethink ‘Overpopulation’, popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_40.pdf

46 Abe

Negative media images of starving African babies, poor, pregnant women of color, and hordes of dangerous Third World men drive home the message that ‘those people’ outnumber ‘us.’ Fear of overpopulation in the Third World often translates into fear of increasing immigration to the West, and thereby people of color becoming the majority. Harvard professor Samuel Huntington argues that high numbers of Latino immigrants threaten a unified American AngloProtestant culture and identity. Anti-immigrant groups tied to white supremacists strategically deploy population fears to appeal to liberal environmentalists. The demonization of immigrants ignores their positive contributions to the U.S. economy as well as the global economic forces that drive many people to migrate. In Europe, nativist policymakers are urging white women to have more babies to reduce the economy’s dependence on immigrant labor. In the U.S. there is a strong link between negative images of Third World overpopulation and racist views of African Americans as burdens on society. Eugenics programs and punitive welfare policies have subjected African Americans and other marginalized communities to sterilization and contraceptive abuse because of racist assumptions that their fertility is out of control. Even though women on welfare have on average fewer than two children, the image of the overbreeding ‘welfare queen’ remains firmly fixed in the white imagination. (__) EMPIRICALLY DENIED – MULTIPLE EXAMPLES PROVE POPULATIONS ARE SUSTAINABLE. NARVESON, 1994
Jan, prof of philosophy @ U of Waterloo in Canada, “A Dissenting Viewpoint: The Overpopulation Scare,” Free Inquiry, Vol. 14, Spring

What about current starvation, you may ask? The answer is that we must carefully distinguish between starvation due to the inhumanity, cruelty, imbecility, and sheer incompetence of governments, and starvation due to the lack of sufficient resources to sustain life. The former we have in plenty--in Somalia, Ethiopia, and to varying degrees elsewhere. But Malthus didn't have that in mind. He supposed that even with hard work and reasonable thought for the morrow, humankind wouldn't be able to survive without severely cutting back on the production of humans. And that situation we do not have. Consider countries such as the Netherlands, with the densest population on earth. Yet Holland is self-sufficient overall in food production. India, which in the past has had dreadful famines, is doing just fine. Even China, now that its government has given up on enforced communism on the farm, is pulling its enormous weight quite well; had it always had a market farm economy, there would surely have been no need for its high-powered and heavy-handed efforts at population control. Of course there is the occasional pocket of desperation resulting from local floods, volcanic explosions, and the like. But the world's capacity to cope with such disasters is beyond doubt. If that were all we had to worry about, concern with starvation in today's world would be of marginal interest by any reasonable standard. In short, starvation in today's world is almost exclusively political in origin--eliminate all the socialist or other authoritarian regimes in the third world and you'd eliminate starvation entirely.

ADI 8
Malthus 2AC BLOCK (3/4)

47 Abe

(__) TURN – MALTHUSIAN ENVIRONMENTAL CRITICISM STIFLES ANY ATTEMPTS TO CREATE THE SOCIAL CHANGE WHICH IS NECESSARY TO SOLVE INEVITABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION. BOOKCHIN, 1988
Murray, Prof. Emeritus @ Rampo College, July, Green Perspective No. 8, “The Population Myth—I”, http://anarchism.jesusradicals.com/library/bookchin/perspectives8.html

Secondly, by reducing us to studies of line graphs, bar graphs, and statistical tables, the neo-Malthusians literally freeze reality as it is. Their numerical extrapolations do not construct any reality that is new; they mere extend, statistic by statistic, what is basically old and given. They are "futurists" in the most shallow sense of the word, not "utopians" in the best sense. We are taught to accept society, behavior, and values as they are, not as they should be or even could be. This procedure places us under the tyranny of the status quo and divests us of any ability to think about radically changing the world. I have encountered very few books or articles written by neo-Malthusians that question whether we should live under any kind of money economy at all, any statist system of society, or be guided by profit oriented behavior. There are books and articles aplenty that explain "how to" become a "morally responsible" banker, entrepreneur, landowner, "developer," or, for all I know, arms merchant. But whether the whole system called capitalism (forgive me!), be it corporate in the west or bureaucratic in the east, must be abandoned if we are to achieve an ecological society is rarely discussed. Thousands may rally around "Earth First!"'s idiotic slogan -- "Back to the Pleistocene!" -- but few, if they are conditioned by neo-MaIalthusian thinking, will rally around the cry of the Left Greens -- "Forward to an Ecological Society!" Lastly, neo-Malthusian thinking is the most backward in thinking out the implications of its demands. If we are concerned, today, and rightly so, about registering AIDS victims, what are the totalitarian consequences about creating a Bureau of Population Control, as some Zero Population Growth wits suggested in the early 1970s? Imagine what consequences would follow from increasing the state's power over reproduction? Indeed, what areas of personal life would not be invaded by slowly enlarging the state's authority over our most intimate kinds of human relations? Yet such demands in one form or another have been raised by neo Malthusians on grounds that hardly require the mental level to examine the Statistical Abstract of the United States. The Social Roots of Hunger This arithmetic mentality which disregards the social context of demographics is incredibly short-sighted. Once we accept without any reflection or criticism that we live in a "grow-or-die" capitalistic society in which accumulation is literally a law of economic survival and competition is the motor of "progress," anything we have to say about population is basically meaningless. The biosphere will eventually be destroyed whether five billion or fifty million live on the planet. Competing firms in a "dog-eat-dog" market must outproduce each other if they are to remain in existence. They must plunder the soil, remove the earth's forests, kill off its wildlife, pollute its air and waterways not because their intentions are necessarily bad, although they usually are -- hence the absurdity of the spiritualistic pablum in which Americans are currently immersed -- but because they must simply survive. Only a radical restructuring of society as a whole, including its anti-ecological sensibilities, can remove this all commanding social compulsion -- not rituals, yoga, or encounter groups, valuable as some of these practices may be (including "improving" our earning capacity and "power" to command). But the most sinister feature about neoMalthusianism is the extent to which it actively deflects us from dealing with the social origins of our ecological problems -- indeed, the extent to which it places the blame for them on the victims of hunger rather than those who victimize them. Presumably, if there is a "population problem" and famine in Africa, it is the ordinary people who are to blame for having too many children or insisting on living too long-- an argument advanced by Malthus nearly two centuries ago with respect to England's poor. The viewpoint not only justifies privilege; it fosters brutalization and de grades the neo-Malthusians even more than it degrades the victims of privilege.

ADI 8
Malthus 2AC BLOCK (4/4)

48 Abe

(__) HARDIN’S WRITINGS ARE NEO-NAZI PROPAGANDA – HE TOUTS OVERPOPULATION AS A WAY TO ADVANCE THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT. HARTMANN, 6
Betsy, “Dangerous Intersections”, COMMITTEE ON WOMEN, POPULATION, AND THE ENVIRONMENT, July 15, http://cwpe.org/node/69

The role of the Pioneer Fund, the major financier of eugenics research in North America, should not be underestimated. The Pioneer Fund supports the eugenics journal Mankind Quarterly, a forum for neo-Nazi style 'scholarship'. The journal supplies much of the false documentation for the eugenic conclusions of The Bell Curve.2 The Pioneer Fund also finances FAIR and the work of Garrett Hardin, the infamous advocate of the worst kind of population control: lifeboat ethics-better to let the poor die than to sink our privileged lifeboat.3 2. Hardin is a major link between population and environment groups and the anti-immigration movement, serving as advisor, for example, to Population-Environment Balance, FAIR and Americans for Immigration Control. Other key links are Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Donald Mann of Negative Population Growth (NPG), and John Tanton, who founded U.S. English, Zero Population Growth and FAIR (see Common Threads, Common Target). In recent months NPG has been putting out expensive, virulent anti-immigration adds in major magazines and newspapers.4 (__) TECH SOLVES THE CRUNCH – AGRICULTURE PROVES. NARVESON, 1994
Jan, prof of philosophy @ U of Waterloo in Canada, “A Dissenting Viewpoint: The Overpopulation Scare,” Free Inquiry, Vol. 14, Spring

What the doomsday set has failed to appreciate is the role of knowledge, specifically of what is broadly called "technology," in all this. In the case of agriculture, technology enables you to get more food from less land. In those countries with substantial farm subsidies on top of market economies, surpluses burgeoning to the point of political embarrassment have been the rule. Increase the price of crop X, and indicate willingness to buy an unlimited amount of it, and you will soon find yourself, in any modern country, with a mountain of X on your hands.The minimum amount of land necessary to support one human, I am told, has lately shrunk to something like the size of an average living room (twenty-seven square meters). There is no reason to doubt that, as agricultural technology advances, we will be able to do it on much less than that again. Under the circumstances, the idea that we are "running out" of arable land unless "we do something" is just not sensible.