You are on page 1of 48

ADI 8 1

Malthus 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 2
Malthus Abe
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

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 3
Malthus Abe
1NC – THE NEGATIVE STRATEGY

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 4
Malthus Abe
1NC – THE NEGATIVE STRATEGY

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 5 Malthus Abe **UNIQUENESS** .

7 Rosamund.” Every year. AND GUILLEBAUD. Optimum Population Trust. Right now. In biology. WITHOUT COERCIVE POPULATION CONTROL. Columbus Dispatch. longages of humans – the prime cause of all shortages of resources – may cause parts of the planet to become uninhabitable. SCIENCE REPORTER FOR THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH. Without action. THE EARTH WILL BE DEAD BY 2050. By 2050.ADI 8 6 Malthus Abe 2NC UNIQUENESS – GENERIC (__) THE NEWEST EVIDENCE CONCLUDES THAT PRIOR STUDIES ONLY UNDERESTIMATE THE PROBLEM. shelter and territory or the space to reproduce. science reporter. Co-Chair of the Optimum Population Trust. significant population increase is inevitable and the current UN forecast of 9.2 billion by 2050 – itself a 40 per cent increase on the 6.5 billion of us.7 billion in 2007 – may turn out to be an underestimate.optimumpopulation.html. That's 1 billion people every 11 years. http://www. John. “Too many people: Earth’s population problem. The environmental damage resulting from population increase is already widespread and serious. not enough Earth. Earth's carrying capacity is thought to be somewhere in the range of 4 billion to 5 billion people. “Too many people. with governments pushed towards coercive population control measures as a regrettable but lesser evil than conflict and suffering.earth. humanity is likely to require the biological capacity of two Earths. Whatever else the future holds. 7 Mike. June 7 The Earth faces a future of rising populations and growing strains on the planet. ranging from climate change to shortages of basic resources such as food and water. There are 6. however. an environmental research and campaigning group. Scientists debate how much population the world can sustain. LAFFERTY. (__) EARTH HAS OVERSHOT ITS CARRYING CAPACITY. and point to increased agricultural production and medical advances that fend off disease. at least 91 million humans are born in excess of those who die. . the carrying capacity usually refers to the number of animals a given area can support with adequate food. argue that we are adept at adapting.org/opt. Some. WE NEED TO BE AROUND 4 BILLION. MCDOUGALL. Professor of Family Planning and Reproductive Health at University college of London.

suggesting the “policy” and “sustainability” options were not being seriously considered by the academic. Rapid population growth 22 will be a significant factor contributing to “undernourishment” in the region (FAO 2002).S.ithaca. world income inequality may increase. 4 Carol A. i. or trigger the “wholesale ecosystem collapse” which many scientists consider a genuine threat. And third. Nigeria) where the U. In 2000. Even assuming an increase in agricultural output (by clearing forests and increasing use of irrigation and fertilizer). Mozambique. Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for almost half of infectious disease deaths globally (CIA 2000). 338. turn away from a free-market approach to development and. 358. http://www. social. negative environmental factor (e. political instability. rejecting the values of consumerism. UNEP 2002: 333. However. The CIA believes the most plausible scenario over the next 20 years is “deterioration. Ethiopia.4). 361). Burundi. 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] . 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. with the aid of “breakthroughs” in biotechnology and nanotechnology. for about 10 years. especially AIDS/HIV.Three things are striking about these scenarios. The last.e. tailing off . might not be able to intervene..ADI 8 7 Malthus Abe 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. and What Can Go Wrong Will Go Wrong. the CIA expects persistent infectious diseases which will have a disruptive effect on global economic. and 4) Sustainability First (reinvigorated NGO’s promote global grass roots democracy. and chronic poverty will lead to malnourishment in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa”(CIA 2001:79). because of high fertility and a large cohort of young people in developing countries. a worsening of the infectious disease threat. Eritrea. The CIA report is blunt: “poor infrastructure and distribution. Sixty-five percent of all deaths in the region are caused by infectious diseases (CIA 2000). None of the scenarios suggest specific. The CIA does not seem concerned that environmental damage in developing countries could directly affect the ecosystems of developed countries. However.pdf Sub-Saharan Africa has the worst prognosis for environmental degradation. “all of the scenarios assume continued growth in global population. effective measures to reduce population. high fertility countries as Angola. the absolute number of undernourished people is expected to rise in such extremely poor. as affluent groups. the Security First and Markets First models seem to reflect the assumptions made in the CIA report. 337. the report imagines that the U. competition. as more countries pass through the demographic transition” (UNEP 2002:323). 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”. 2) Policy First (governments agree to meet specific environmental and social targets). who may turn to violence and terrorism (CIA 2001:97). It projects very “rough” times ahead. and individualism. and other rich nations will remain relatively secure and affluent (“globalization has been successful” CIA 2001:97). Democratic Republic of Congo. Environmental Values 13:1 February. It seems prudent to consider further options. Second. then limited improvement”. especially in the next 10-15 years..S. First. most pessimistic. protected by their military and economic power. Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College. in all scenarios. with escalating conflicts caused by environmental and social-economic stresses). corporate and intelligence experts who advise that organization. scenario will strike many as the most likely. 3) Security First ( a world divided between rich and poor. The four UN scenarios are 1) Markets First (corporate-dominated global capitalist expansion). although in every scenario the UN report cites “continued population growth” as a significant. as well as greater equality in access to food. However. 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). take actions to preserve the environment and create an “equitable” global distribution of wealth) (UNEP 2002:Ch. The CIA 2001 report on demographic trends projected three possible futures for the world in 50 years: Fertility Drives the Trends. especially in North America and Europe. disease and political instability and violence. 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..edu/hs/philrel/replib. REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION. and political dynamics (CIA 2000). KATES. Orderly Progress.g. especially young men. followed by a “fitful” decrease. In 30 years. and Somalia (FAO 2002). producing “large pools of angry people”. food shortages.

In short. perhaps only hope of preventing further environmental destruction in the developing world. Under the Markets First and Security First Scenarios. will create a demand for higher living standards which. it would seem that rapid population reduction offers the best. coupled with high fertility. then altruistic re-distribution of wealth (or. “Pressures on biodiversity increase between 2002 and 2032 in all scenarios” (UNEP 2002:359).23 . but “very little natural forest remains in Northern Africa in any of the scenarios” (UNEP 2002:358-9). If that is not achieved. 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.ADI 8 8 Malthus Abe 2NC UNIQUENESS – AFRICA (2/2) [CONTINUED—NO TEXT DELETED] The “sustainability” and “policy” scenarios for Africa assume stronger economic growth in that region (stimulated by a more “equitable sharing” of wealth). Sustainability First has the second worst outcome for forests (after Security First). nothing mitigates a Malthusian disaster in Africa. will actually produce more land degradation than a free market approach (UNEP 2002:358).

India may overtake China as the world's most populous nation.uci.htm In India. 5 Peter J.bio. “BIODIVERSITY and CONSERVATION”. http://darwin. surpassing the 2 billion mark in 2025. the population is growing much faster. Hypertext Book. BYRANT.H.D). With 947 million inhabitants today. (P. professor in the Department of Developmental and Cell Biology @ Berkley.ADI 8 9 Malthus Abe 2NC UNIQUENESS – INDIA (__) INDIA IS OVERPOPULATED – IT HAS THE FASTEST GROWING POPULATION IN THE WORLD. where family-planning efforts have been less aggressive. .edu/~sustain/bio65/lec24/b65lec24. University of California.

(Morrison. Given the current shape of the human population graph.2 billion in 2090 — an average loss of 71. those indicators also spell out a much larger and. from our point of view.dieoff. www. 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. no formal model). Thence it plunges to 3.4 million people per year (i. deaths minus births) during 54 years. 1999) . 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. Gaia is running like a Swiss watch. the world population rises to about 7.e. more ominous message: the human plague cycle is right on track for a demographically normal climax and collapse.e. DUNCAN.0 billion in the 2036.org Australian writer Reg Morrison likewise foresees that overshoot and collapse is where humanity is headed. INSTITUTE ON ENERGY AND MAN. In his scenario (i. 2000 Nov 13. The Peak of World Oil Production.ADI 8 10 Malthus Abe 2NC UNIQUENESS – 2036 (__) THE CRUNCH IS COMING IN 2036.

Environmental Values 13:1 February.. mammal (18)..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). is thought to be about [ONE] 1 bird or mammal species lost every 500-1000 years (UNEP 2002:121). which appear to be accelerating. KATES.ADI 8 11 Malthus Abe 2NC UNIQUENESS – SPECIES EXTINCTION (__) SPECIES EXTINCTION IS ONE THOUSAND TIMES THE NORMAL RATE.pdf Rates of species extinction..edu/hs/philrel/replib.. http://www. estimated from fossil records. with most estimates at 1. The background (“normal”) rate of species extinction. (UNEP 2002:298) have been described by leading scientists as “appalling” (WS 1997).” the “alteration and fragmentation of existing habitats ensures that any future radiation of mammals. 4 Carol A. The percent of bird (12)..Human activities will likely increase [primate] rates of extinction. On one estimate.000-times faster than background rates (Pimentel et al 1999:30). Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College. apes and big cats. WE ARE WITNESSING A MASS EXTINCTION. As “vast tracts of wilderness” vanish in the “not-so- distant future. will not include large forms such as rhinoceroses. And the rates are certain to rise–and to do so exponentially–as natural habitats continue to dwindle” (Lovejoy 2002:70). “Estimates of present extinction rates range from 100 to 1.ithaca. fish (5) and flowering plant (8) species threatened with extinction is consistent with that estimate. for instance. one species extinction occurs every 20 minutes (Levin and Levin 2002:6).. Ecologists estimate that half of all living bird and mammal species will be gone within 200 or 300 years (Levin and Levin 2002:6). REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION.000 times normal.000. These exceptional losses qualify the present as an era of “mass extinction” (Levin and Levin 2002:6). The extinction rate for some organisms may be 1..000 to 10. .

Africa's effective density is projected to grow to only about that of France today (266)." All too often.org/page27. *33 This more habitable portion is just a little over half the continent's area. few nations (and certainly not Earth itself) would be likely to be considered overpopulated in the near future. 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. and other rich nations are overpopulated because of their massive contributions to the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere. AND EHRLICH. that is. it has long been recognized that density per se means very little. EHRLICH. Even those don't necessarily signal overpopulation—after all. we can look more closely at the concept of "overpopulation. associate director and policy coordinator of the Center for Conservation Biology @ Stanford. The United States is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources and contributing mightily to the destruction of global environmental systems. For instance. Europe.218)." because it has only 55 people per square mile. Bing Professor of Population Studies @ Stanford. and doesn't Hong Kong have a booming economy and fancy hotels? In short. Like the profligate son of our earlier analogy. giving an effective population density of 117 per square mile. to the area's carrying capacity. http://dieoff. if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants. the entire planet and virtually every nation is already vastly overpopulated. they usually contemplate places like the Netherlands (1. *35 By this standard. Almost all the rich nations are overpopulated because they are rapidly drawing down stocks of resources around the world. we repeat. Even by 2020. or Hong Kong (14. that area is overpopulated. (excluding Alaska). if density were the standard of overpopulation. The error.S. CARRYING CAPACITY IS A MUCH MORE ACCURATE PREDICTOR OF ECOLOGICAL IMPACT BECAUSE IT ASSUMES LOCAL ENVIRONMENTS. The Population Explosion. and few people would consider France excessively crowded or overpopulated. the Dutch seem to be thriving.htm. That's still only about a fifth of that in the United Kingdom.031 per square mile). *32 A more sophisticated measure would take into consideration the amount of Africa not covered by desert or "impenetrable" forest." *31 The appropriate response is "So what?" Density is generally irrelevant to questions of overpopulation. Africa is overpopulated now because. lies in trying to define overpopulation in terms of density. they are spending their capital with no thought for the future. Taiwan (1. 1990 Paul. For instance. *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.ADI 8 12 Malthus Abe 2NC UNIQUENESS – A2 DENSITY POPULATION DENSITY IS IRRELEVANT. this country would still have a smaller population density than England. the Soviet Union. 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. among many other reasons. if brute density were the criterion. 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. . while Europe (excluding the USSR) has 261 and Japan 857. among other indications. When people think of crowded countries. Japan. one would have to conclude that Africa is "underpopulated. or Belgium.604). p 37-40 Having considered some of the ways that humanity is destroying its inheritance. They don't live solely on the land in their own nations. Holland. the deputy editor in chief of Forbes magazine pointed out recently. too high a population density. and Anne. overpopulation is thought of simply as crowding: too many people in a given area.

Although I have been strongly critical of the shoddy arguments of Ehrlich and other doomsters (in my book Public Intellectuals). Ehrlich. Just because the problem of overpopulation has been exaggerated in the past doesn’t mean it is not a problem today.. the "fence"). Should We Worry about Overpopulation?. 6 Richard. population is by curtailing immigration (e. The belief that the mistakes of Malthus. . Former 7TH Circuit Judge and Published expert on shit from Environmental analysis to Anti-Trust Law. I believe that overpopulation is a serious issue and deserves dispassionate analysis. 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.g. POSNER. http://www.com/archives/2006/10/should_we_worry. Such arguments confuse frequencies (the past) with probabilities (the future). and have spread to liberals because the only way to slow or stop the growth of the U.ADI 8 13 Malthus Abe 2NC UNIQUENESS – A2 EMPIRICALLY DENIED (__) PRIOR FALSE PREDICTIONS DON’T DENY OUR DISAD – YOU CONFUSE FREQUENCY WITH PROBABILITY. The future may not resemble the past.S.html 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).becker-posner-blog.

Nathan Keytiz.6 percent (roughly four million). economic. statistical numbers are indispensable. COHEN. (__) LINKS TO THE AFF -.ADI 8 14 Malthus Abe 2NC UNIQUENESS – A2 POPULATION FORECASTING FAILS (__) POPULATION FORECASTING IS EMPIRICALLY SUCCESSFUL. observed: “Demographers can no more be held responsible for inaccuracy in forecasting population twenty years ahead than geologists. the numbers either are exact or have known or estimable errors. cold winters. a mathematical demographer at Harvard. They are often far more informative than verbal descriptions or intuitive hunches. WE WIN ON PRESUMPTION. The numbers of statistics come from empirical measurements. For example. volcanoes and the weather.THE AFFIRMATIVE LOGIC MAKES THEIR CASE INDETERMINATE. 1995 How many people can the earth support pg. the numbers of mathematics and the numbers of statistics (including those of demography. Uncertainty does not render statistical numbers worthless. technological and cultural forecasts are also prone to error. not to mention forecasts of epidemics. 1995 How many people can the earth support pg. even with uncertainty. or estimates of error that are themselves vulnerable to error.” Even that is difficult. the 1990 census of the United States was estimated to undercount the population by 2. Political. because demographic projection techniques omit major factors that influence population change. What we are responsible for is warning one another and our public what the error of estimates is likely to be. meteorologists. these numbers may have unknown errors. 52 The good news for demographers is that they are not the only forecasting professionals without a crystal ball. or economists who fail to announce earthquakes. The numbers of mathematics come from logical calculations. . 52 Despite their superficial similarities. or depressions twenty years ahead. COHEN.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. economics and all the natural and human sciences) are different beats.

He leans heavily on two expert studies: "The Age of Substitutability" by Weinberg and Goeller (Science. Recall that Zeno "proved" that Achilles could never catch up with a tortoise that had a finite head start on him. pp282-289. Furthermore. And they express serious reservations about the social and institutional feasibility of maintaining such a high consumption steady state. This implies a world per-capita energy usage of only 70 percent of current U. constant costs. “A review of Julian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource. pp282-289. “A review of Julian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource. with an infinity of distance. but this would be a bald assertion. DALY.htm But what about Simon's empirical evidence against resource finitude? It fares no better than his fallacious attempt at logical refutation.) SIMON’S ARGUMENT IS PREMISED UPON A LOGICAL FALLACY DISPROVING THE ENTIRETY OF HIS CRITICISM. ecological economist and professor at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland.org/page27. per capita use. ad infinitum. We cannot. From Weinberg and Goeller he quotes optimistic findings of "infinite" substitutability among resources. and world energy use would be only 12 times present use. and then as soon as he moves from one-inch lines to copper with nothing but the word "similarly" to bridge the gap. Island Press. which gets us rather close to alchemy. and while Achilles advances this distance. DALY.org/page27. assuming a future low-cost. abundant energy source.S. ecological economist and professor at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland. Thus Achilles will never catch up. and since what cannot be counted is not finite. . While Achilles traverses the distance from his starting point to that of the tortoise.*1 His use of these studies is amazingly selective. But it does not lend support to his fallacious conclusion that resources are infinite and therefore growth forever is possible.’ Steady State Economics. Simon never tells us whether "infinite substitutability" means infinite substitutability at declining costs. Copper is after all an element. This buttresses Simon's earlier premise of "infinite" subdivisibility or substitutability among resources.) BAD DATA. it "follows" that copper is not finite. he forgets the distinction. or at infinite costs! Of course Simon could simply assert that the total set of all resources is infinite. More to the point. Simon's argument therefore fails even if we grant his premise of infinite substitutability.1976). 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. not a conclusion from an argument based on substitutability. http://dieoff. But no amount of rearrangement of divisions within a finite set can make the set infinite. 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. Island Press. (A. 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. the tortoise makes a further advance. http://dieoff. which is finite. and so on. and the transmutation of elements is more difficult than the phrase "infinite substitutability" implies! Indeed.5 times the present population.’ Steady State Economics. This is exactly parallel to what Simon has done. which is what he has attempted. the levels envisioned by Weinberg and Goeller. or copper is infinite. 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. though cornicopian by general consent. February 20.ADI 8 15 Malthus Abe 2NC UNIQUENESS – A2 SIMON (__) SIMON IS AN ASS HAT. 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. Since copper cannot be simply counted like beans in a jar. 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. Zeno's paradox confounds an infinity of subdivisions of a distance. are quite modest by Simon's standards: world population in the Age of Substitutability would be only 2. however. 1991 Herman. (B. It assumes zero growth in population and energy use at the highest level that Weinberg and Goeller are willing to say is technically feasible. increasing costs. he says. and Scarcity and Growth by Barnett and Morse. the tortoise advances a certain distance. 1991 Herman.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. He has confused an infinity of possible boundary lines between copper and noncopper with an infinity of amount of copper.

ADI 8 16 Malthus Abe **LINKS** .

1974 Paul R. 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. This is disastrous because the more people there are during this period. disaster entrained. they inflict more damage. Bing Professor of Population Studies @ Stanford. . could (or would) supply food in perpetuity for an number of people. In the first edition of our book “The Population Bomb. BROWN. 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. and the fewer resources will be left for the survivors. and Anne H. there are other pernicious fallacies in the “what we as Americans can do about the world population problem” game. June 16. send the food—but insist that population control measures be instituted.ADI 8 17 Malthus Abe 2NC LINK – LINEAR (__) THE IMPACT’S LINEAR – EVERY PERSON SAVED. EHRLICH.” 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. and the point is now moot. population growth would completely outstrip the capacity of the United States or any other nation to supply food. perhaps 10. (__) EACH INDIVIDUAL IS CRITICAL – EVERY RESOURCE MATTERS IN THE CRUNCH. Yes.000 people saved today. Sooner or later.. no on in the U. For every 1. pg. if any.S. 6 Paul. associate director and policy coordinator of the Center for Conservation Biology @ Stanford. the more damage they do to their environment. you were doing evil. For every person. The logic then (as today) was impeccable. Proquest New York Times Historical. COSTS TEN MORE IN THE CRUNCH. NOTES FROM A DYING PLANET. 241 Furthermore. Government paid the slightest heed to that suggestion (or tolerated proposals by Wil-liam and Paul Paddock in their 1968 book. PhD. for every year that a population remains unsustainable. since we have no more sur-plus food.000 would die when the crunch came. “Famine—1975!”).S. 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. If you deluded people into thinking that either the U. AND EHRLICH. But despite the logic. “Misconceptions. one or two centuries from now.

In the past two centuries much effort has been expended looking for acceptable internal population controls-so far without much success. Sanitation and modern medicine have greatly weakened the power of disease as an effective controller of population size. however. could wipe out a quarter to a half of a population in a year or two. When external controls are eliminated. cholera and plague which. Crowd-diseases were the most important negative feedbacks of the Malthusian demostat.ADI 8 18 Malthus Abe 2NC LINK – DISEASE (__) DISEASE SPREAD CHECKS POPULATION EXPANSION.garretthardinsociety. . this threat was mitigated by the sporadic eruption of such crowd-diseases as dysentery. http://www. humanity must then face the problem of devising alternative controls that are internal to the species. at their worst.org/articles/art_from_shortage_to_longage. 1991 Garret. PROFESSOR EMERITUS HUMAN ECOLOGY AT UCSB. Until very recently. This daunting problem remains to be solved. HARDIN. “From Shortage to Longage: Forty Years in the Population Vineyards”.html The potential of exponential growth in the human population is a standing threat of human welfare.

Although Boulding first proposed both these theories in 1956 and Hardin reinforced them in 1968. http://www. Nevertheless. (2) if the lifeboat has unused excess capacity.org/tributes/tr_cairns_2004mar. if the only check on the growth of population is starvation and misery. The Garrett Hardin Society. 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. 4 John. 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. He acknowledged that the exact limit is a matter for argument. Climate change occurs naturally.garretthardinsociety. if the only check on population growth is starvation and misery.html When advocating living within limits. the dangerous expectation still exists that a technological solution can be found to every problem. 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. 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. (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). CAIRNS. . Hardin's suggested reply to those advocating rescue is simple: Get out and yield your place to others. 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. the population will grow until it is miserable and starves. but greenhouse gases and deforestation have probably accelerated the rate of change.ADI 8 19 Malthus Abe 2NC LINK – FAMINE (__) FAMINE IS AN IMPORTANT POPULATION CHECK – ONLY WAY TO PRESERVE CARRYING CAPACITY IN THE FACE OF RISING GREENHOUSE GASES AND DEFORESTATION. he believed that knowledge alone will not move nations. mounting evidence indicates that humankind now exists on the slope of logarithmic curves unprecedented in human history. but already heard are calls for help from overpopulated countries and many individuals seeking (and usually getting) admission to less crowded "lifeboats. then no matter how favorable the environment or how advanced the technology. Tribute to Garrett Hardin. astonishing and unforeseen events will be required for humanity's education." Hardin listed three possibilities of how their calls should be answered (Hardin 1974): (1) take all the needy into the lifeboat and swamp it. The dismal theory states that. The utterly dismal theory states that. 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?). Hardin felt that the engineering principle of a "safety factor" would reduce the damage of episodic or stochastic events. He was a strong supporter of and commentator on Kenneth Boulding's dismal and utterly dismal theories of economics. Persuasive. Hardin devoted his entire professional career to analyzing these and many other related issues.

“Ecology of Increasing Disease Population growth and environmental degradation” http://dieoff. The US population alone will double to 540 million during the next 70 years (PRB 1996. Anne Krawic. which are steadily increasing . 1998 David. are of great public health concern because they are sources of disease epidemics (Iseki 1994).is already expanding rapidly in crowded tropical cities (Lederberg et al. water. Based on the increase in air. Densely crowded urban environments. For example. intensifying pollution and disease problems. with 30-60 million dengue infections now occurring each year (Table 1. Michael Shriberg. in which the number of people continues to double especially quickly (i.spread by the mosquito Aedes aegypti. which breeds in tin cans. Professor of Entomology at Cornell. Nancy Doon. old tires. Dengue fever has increased dramatically since 1980. ACCOUNTS FOR 40% OF GLOBAL DEATHS. Monath 1994). we estimate that 40% of human deaths each year result from exposure to environmental pollutants and malnutrition. and by 2025. two-thirds of the world's population will have settled in large urban areas (WRI 1994). By the turn of the century. the world’s population will double to 12 billion in the next 50 years. Susan Lee. These deaths are in addition to the toll taken by infectious diseases. and soil pollutants worldwide. Maria Tort. dengue fever -. USBC 1996). Erica Howard. according to projections. and Jonathan Talbot. Jessica Rossman. Automobile use and energy consumption. and other water-holding containers -. Joshua Berger. every 20-25 years). more than one-half of the world's population will live in cities that have more than 1 million people.ADI 8 20 Malthus Abe 2NC LINK – POLLUTION (__) POLLUTION IS A CRITICAL DEATH CHECK. PIMENTAL ET AL. especially those without adequate sanitation.. Fridah Mugo. Environmental problems are already particularly severe in urban areas of the world.e.org/page165.htm Based on current growth rates. 1992). Linda D’Anna.

. to increase crop yields.ithaca. 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. of Energy projected at (then) current pumping rates the US would exhaust its oil reserves in 15-20 years (Pimentel and Giampietro 1994:3... Currently. 4 Carol A. (A.. pesticides. In developing countries. fossil energy is used primarily for fertilizers and irrigation (Pimentel et al 1997:11). primarily through more irrigation and fertilization. or burned”(CIA 2001:77). Water supplies are also threatened by pollution from pesticides.Water demand [in 1993] already far exceeds supplies in nearly 80 nations. The 2001 CIA report concludes: “water availability is likely to become one of the most pressing and contentious resource issues of this century.. water supplies could run out by 2100 if per capita consumption and excessive use in agriculture are not controlled. Species are also being lost because of pollution.”(Pimentel et al 1999:24). REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION. fertilizers and sediments.edu/hs/philrel/replib. urbanization. Oil production is expected by some experts to peak about 2004. a need for more crop land.edu/hs/philrel/replib.edu/hs/philrel/replib. Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College. “Some technologists. Environmental Values 13:1 February. and each year about 16 million hectares of virgin forest are “cut. and demand for wood in developed countries ensure that “forests will continue to be destroyed at an alarming rate”(CIA 2001:77). irrigation.) RELIES ON FOSSIL FUELS WHICH ARE UNSUSTAINABLE.pdf In developed countries. (B.” Tropical rainforests are a particularly significant loss.ithaca. “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.. the US Dept. and 20 countries of the Near East and North Africa have the worst prospects.pdf Most of the degraded agricultural land has been replaced by removing forests. About 40% of people in the world live in regions that compete for fresh water supplies (Pimentel and Giampietro 1994:2). will face freshwater shortages.”(CIA 2001:77). usually at about 1% per year (Pimentel et al 1994:354).. Pimentel et al 1997:10). “In those areas.. It would indeed be a wonderful achievement to see these technologists produce crops without water!”(Pimentel et al 1999:32). because they contain anywhere from half to 90% of all terrestrial species (UNPD2001a:21). 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. The 2001 CIA report estimates that by 2025. Environmental Values 13:1 February. Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College. each provide half of freshwater supply in the world. bulldozed.ADI 8 21 Malthus Abe 2NC LINK – A2 AGRICULTURE (__) AGRICULTURE CAN’T RESOLVE POPULATION PRESSURES. Since about 60% of the world’s population growth this decade will occur in countries with tropical forests.. Agriculture accounts for 60% to 80% of deforestation (Pimentel et al 1997:10). 48 countries containing 3 billion people. Surface water and groundwater. 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). Pimentel et al 1999:25).ithaca. nearly half of the world’s original forest cover has been lost in the last 50 years. 4 Carol A. and the intelligence community). and machinery. REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION. Environmental Values 13:1 February. is not recoverable (Pimentel et al 1994:353-4. 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). Groundwater resources are renewed very slowly. A CIA assessment of long-term demographic trends (which was based on an October 2000 conference of experts from academia. toxic chemicals and sewage (Pimentel et al 1994:354-5). KATES. . refilled by rainfall. business. KATES. about 87% of the world’s fresh water is consumed or used up by agriculture and. In the US. noted that “Tropical forests are vanishing at the rate of 250 acres per minute”(CIA 2001:77). like Julian Simon (1996). http://www. The world oil supply has been projected to last about 50 years at (1994) current pumping rates (Pimintel et al 1999:7). However.. Further.pdf Economists have proposed agricultural intensification. thus. Deforestation is a major threat to biodiversity. REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION.21 unless new reserves are discovered (Pimentel et al 1999:27).This situation will only be exacerbated by population growth” (CIA 2001:77). http://www. This means prices will rise.. (C. 4 Carol A. pesticide use. Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College. A combination of demand for wood for cooking and heating. intensive farming techniques require massive amounts of fossil energy for fertilizers. http://www. Pimentel et al 1997:11). with serious implications for developing countries which rely heavily on fossil energy for fertilizer and irrigation (Pimentel et al 1997:12).. the report expects this population pressure to produce “accelerating destruction of forests” (CIA 2001:76).) NOT ENOUGH WATER KATES... groundwater is being depleted at an unsustainable 25% above replacement level (Pimentel et al 1994:354. there are ecological limits on both methods.) CAUSES DEFORESTATION WHICH CRUSHES GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY.. In 1991.

depleted or exploited up to their maximum sustainable yield”(FAO 2002). Although bland accounts of declining fish yields might suggest a limited period of conservation can restore “fish stocks. http://www.ca/publications/reports. tuna.. The research reports are available at http://www. have questioned the sustainability of aquaculture (Rees 2002:29-31). because by 2000 “three- quarters of ocean fish stocks were overfished.edu/hs/philrel/replib. However.ubc.in effect. 4 Carol A. haddock.” a major study directed by Dr. REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION.saup. flake and flounder have fallen by more than half (Pauly 2002).ithaca. Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College. . 20 Ecologists.pdf The FAO also acknowledges that environmental factors are expected to limit the supply of fish. they expect aquaculture to continue to grow rapidly (FAO 2002). Daniel Pauly of the University of British Columbia Fisheries Center (the Sea Around Us project).fisheries. KATES. Aquaculture is also being promoted by the Malaysia-based WorldFish Center and the International Food Policy Research Institute. Over the past 50 years catches of cod. losing its ability to sustain further catches.ADI 8 22 Malthus Abe 2NC LINK – A2 AQUACULTURE (__) AQUACULTURE IS UNSUSTAINABLE – WE’RE ON THE BRINK OF COMPLETE FISHERY COLLAPSE. however. 2002 (World Fish Center 2002). Environmental Values 13:1 February. concluded that the North Atlantic ocean is heading towards a “fisheries collapse”. which issued a report on declining fish yields in preparation for a conference (“Fish for All Summit”) in November.

is itself a threat to survival. On The Edge of Scarcity. and thereby directly determine survival and death rates. booms and busts. However. KATES. particularly if environmental pressures are included. xxvii-xxviii It seems evident now that there will he a temporal conjunction of four sizable bottlenecks: population. of Applied Sciences. as is exemplified by speculation. and the environment. techniques to ensure continuity in a world of random but significant disturbances may break down. as is already the case with atomic power plants. as well as many environmental constraints are mediated and coordinated by markets. the result. p. and over 50% of the Sun’s energy captured by the entire plant biomass on Earth each year ( Pimentel et al 1999:30). should the event and the scarcity associated with them occur. as we approach the question of energy and land. the very technique chosen to manage survival.edu/hs/philrel/replib.16 Humanity currently appropriates an unsustainable 25-35% of coastal shelf primary production (Rees 1996:198). certainly. Prof Relig. the supply of energy could for technological or political or economic reasons become highly discontinuous. REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION. . 4 Carol A. however. However. 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. be it because of events such as droughts. how many big risks. would be an impossibly large ecological deficit. we must also distinguish between bottlenecks that present continuous hut stable challenges and the ones that represent discontinuous and unstable challenges. nor could such risk be covered. http://www. energy. where no private insurer is willing to cover the entire risk. population. we can increasingly expect challenges characterized by discontinuity. erosion. and even assuming such policies “worked” to accelerate global economic growth. 2 Michael & Isidore. The instability would thereby increase. 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.pdf The second objection is that even if every nation on the planet rapidly adopted “efficient” free market and free trade policies. Market dynamics themselves upset the delicate balance among land. Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College. Studies @ Hobart & William Smith AND WALLIMANN. projected population levels. the capitalist market. DOBKOWSKI. Syracuse Univ. given current and. Even though energy resources may not be depleted. and as survival hinges ever more and with small margins on this complexity. Therefore. 5 additional Earths would be needed simply to maintain the present rate of ecological decline (Rees 1996:210). is a challenge with great continuity. 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. Finland. Additionally. With a population of 10 or 11 billion. leaving politics as the last potential guarantor of continuity and stability. any jolt to the system is bound to make survival more immediately a matter of life and death. instability increases. conflicts grow. Furthermore. The private market insurance system may soon prove unable to ensure against certain ecosystem risks. for production factors such as population. and environmental carrying capacity. can the political system handle before solidarity breaks down. Humanity’s ecological footprint has been estimated to exceed long-term global carrying capacity as much as 40% (Rees 2002:40). William Rees estimated that if the world population of 5. Press . Economics & Social Policy @ U. land.8 billion (in 1996) lived at unsustainable North American consumption levels.ADI 8 23 Malthus Abe 2NC LINK – A2 FREE MARKET (S) (__) MARKET ECONOMIES AND COMPLEX SYSTEMS CREATE DISCONTINUITIES THAT RISK EXTINCTION. or drastic overuse. energy. Environmental Values 13:1 February. Prof Sociology. land. Agricultural land may increasingly go out of commission in a discontinuous way. recessions. and depressions. the jolts emitted by the economic system are also of importance. energy. Population growth. 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. ed. floods. for example. As the system reaches an ever greater complexity. Thus.ithaca. Markets.. two additional planet Earths would be required to accommodate the ecological load.

” But today’s much larger population means that the number of innovations per year will still be far higher than in medieval times. http://www. (__) AT WORST. The results surprised him. we are fast approaching a new dark age. when the rate of innovation is the same as it was during the Dark Ages. it included the major patent-producing years of America’s greatest inventor.” he says. 2004). Most futurologists say technology is developing at exponential rates.edu/hs/philrel/replib. including the incandescent bulb. First. “I wondered if there was a reason for this. the innovation rate plummets to medieval levels.com) But according to a new analysis. is the conclusion of Jonathan Huebner. Nevertheless. Building on this. The period between 1873 and 1915 was certainly an innovative one. catalyzing still further waves of innovation. When he plotted the number of US patents granted per decade divided by the country’s population. KATES. Huebner sees the end if innovation looming dead ahead. Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College. Medieval future Huebner draws some stark lessons from his analysis. this view couldn’t be more wrong: far from being in technological nirvana. WE NEED A 50% REDUCTION IN ECOSYSTEM CONSUMPTION – NO COMING TECH ACHIEVES NEAR THAT. Of course it’s always possible that some new technologies will emerge to mediate the environmental impact of population and consumption. 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. he found the graph peaked in 1915. “We are approaching the ‘dark ages point’. REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION. or even keeping pace with population growth. “We’ll reach that in 2024. Developments in genome sequencing and nanoscale machinery are racing ahead too. will pay an unacceptable price for growth .ithaca. using the 7200 key innovations listed in a recently published book. for example. NEW SCIENTIST 7-2-5 (www.pdf There are at least two major ecological objections to this growth prescription. “Perhaps there is a limit to what technology can achieve.” he says. He has long been struck by the fact that promised advances were not appearing as quickly as predicted. 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. ecologists have vigorously contested the claim that technology can provide substitutes for all scarce. But if they are wrong. California. a physicist working at the Pentagon’s Naval Air Warfare Center in China Lake. He says the rate of technological innovation reached a peak a century ago and has been declining ever since. Therefore. Thomas Edison (1847-1931). 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). he examined the number of patents granted in the US from 1790 to the present. and critical. It’s an unfashionable view. and internet connectivity and telecommunications bandwidth are growing even faster than computer power. they peaked in 1873 and have been declining ever since (see Graphs). Next. Environmental Values 13:1 February. Moore’s law. which is running at seven “important technological developments” per billion people per year.15 However.ADI 8 24 Malthus Abe 2NC LINK – A2 TECH (1/2) (__) TECH WILL STOP ADVANCING – WE’RE ON THE BRINK OF A NEW DARK AGE. efforts to reduce population and consumption will have made the planet healthier and less crowded. Huebner says Extrapolating Huebner’s global innovation curve just two decades into the future. The global rate of innovation today. matches the rate in 1600. His study will be published in Technological Forecasting and Social Change. That. And the chip makers have lived up to it’s predictions. foresaw chimp densities (for which read speed and memory capacity) doubling every 18 months. smarter chips are leading to even faster growth in the power of computers. Rather than growing exponentially. If the economic optimists turn out to be right. he plotted major innovations and scientific advances over time compared to world population. For instance. Edison patented more than 1000 inventions. And like the lookout on the Titanic who spotted the fateful iceberg. “I’m certainly not predicting that the dark ages will reoccur in 2024. and that food production in particular can keep pace with population growth without unacceptable environmental damage. and our own species among others.” In an effort to find out. 4 Carol A. prudence would suggest a direct focus on eco-compatible population and consumption levels. at least. Despite far higher standards of education and massive R&D funding “it is more difficult now for people to develop new technology”.newscientist. the less well-known Kurzweil’s law says that these faster. Technology to achieve this goal does not appear to be on the horizon. if at all. movie cameras and the phonograph. the planet. electricity generation and distribution grids.” Huebner says. The History of Science and Technology (Houghton Mifflin. resources. But Huebner is confident of his facts..

http://billtotten. by taking advantage of favorable conditions (new technology. CATTON. 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. temporarily increase human numbers and appetites above the long-term capacity of environments to provide needed resources and services. THE INTERACADEMY PANEL ON INTERNATIONAL ISSUES. From his 18th century perspective he simply had no basis for seeing the human ability to "overshoot" carrying capacity. India. It was inconceivable to Malthus that human societies could. (__) ERR NEGATIVE – THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CONCLUDES AGAINST THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TECHNOLOGY TO PREVENT A POPULATION CRUNCH. Human economic growth and technology have only created the appearance that Malthus was wrong (in the way we used to learn in school). in a "Science Summit" on World Population. from October 24- 27. Negative Population Growth.net/?id=3547 Representatives of national academies of science from throughout the world met in New Delhi. 5 “Joint Statement by 58 of The World’s Scientific Academies”. .html Malthus was not wrong in the ways commonly supposed. one of the Royal Society of London and the United States National Academy of Sciences. science and technology may not be able to prevent irreversible degradation of the natural environment and continued poverty for much of the world. 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.com/2005/03/malthus-more-relevant-than-ever.interacademies. and the other and international conference organized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Professor Emeritus at Washington State University. abundant fossil fuels). 1998 William R. http://www.blogspot. The conference grew out of two earlier meetings. 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. 1993.ADI 8 25 Malthus Abe 2NC LINK – A2 TECH (2/2) (__) TECHNOLOGY WILL INEVITABLY FAIL TO PRODUCE – ONLY A POSSIBILITY TO DELAY THE CRUNCH.

The closest star with planets appears to be over eight light years away. 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 nearest star to the earth is Alpha Centauri which is four light years away. 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. But if we can get to zero population growth on the space vehicle. Moreover. 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..deaths = zero). to avoid taking the necessary actions dictated by circumstances. the voyagers would have to limit their population to replacement levels only (i. people would have to be exported as fast as the world's population is increasing. 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. Oxford University Press For interstellar migration to prevent an increase of population on earth. four to five generations. (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.org/pop_issues_policies_2_2_daleiden_j.000 years to get to Alpha Centauri. we would be the space aliens. why not do it here on earth in the first place. i. .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. no matter how absurd. Perhaps only Native Americans can appreciate this irony. DALEIDEN. that there are no inhabitable planets in our own solar system. and the likelihood that those planets are inhabitable is extremely small. 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. some people will clutch at any solution. 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. people would have to be shipped off faster than this.e. (__) SPACE IS IMPOSSIBLE – NO INHABITABLE PLANETS. And at the present birth rate. p64-98.* Traveling at the present rate of space speeds ―about twenty-five thousand mph― it would take 114. We already know.) (__) 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. however. we need to travel to other solar systems. one trillion dollars per spaceship would seem a bargain. http://www. Finally. but only at a huge cost. Prometheus Books. LIVING WITHIN LIMITS.mnforsustain. and there is the rub. New York. As Garrett Hardin explains. 1999 The American Dream: Can it survive the 21st Century?.ADI 8 26 Malthus Abe 2NC LINK – A2 SPACE (__) DOESN’T SOLVE – CAN’T GET PEOPLE OFF THE PLANET FAST ENOUGH TO RESOLVE POPULATION PRESSURES. HARDIN. sort of like the Europeans who moved to the new world of the Americas. But let us take a sunny view of things and ignore the possibility that the earth is already overpopulated. births . during those five generations of space travel.e. 1993 GARRETT. BILLIONS WOULD STILL DIE ON EARTH – SURVIVAL WOULD BE PRETTY UNBEARABLE AFTER ALL THAT ANYWAY. Nevertheless. (Worse: if we agree that the world is already overpopulated. IF THERE ARE THEY’RE TO FAR AWAY AND ZERO POPULATION GROWTH IS A PREREQUISITE TO SPACE TRAVEL.) To find a livable planet.

may even cause the entire planet to explode.26a. Although the extent of the damage is unclear. violent storms. CHALKO. hence some serious environmental threats will be ameliorated. . however.g. This "nuclear winter" projection forecasts freezing summertime temperatures. On balance. in extreme circumstances. “Can a Neutron Bomb Accelerate Global Volcanic Activity?” http://sci-e-research.com/neutron_bomb.is.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.D.. dramatic reductions in rainfall). perhaps by shunning certain regions or by carrying radioactivity meters everywhere we go the way our ancestors carried spears.25 temporary climatic changes (e. We shall probably learn to adjust to these new conditions. G.. Ph.) NUCLEAR WAR CAUSES THE EARTH TO EXPLODE – TOTAL EXTINCTION.. lower efficiencies of plant photosynthesis. 1992 Moti. http://www. for instance. Radioactive fallout will contaminate soils and waters.ADI 8 27 Malthus Abe 2NC LINK – A2 NUCLEAR WAR D/T (__) NUCLEAR WAR IMPACT ISN’T A DOUBLE TURN (A. Wells' The Time Machine. Nuclear explosions might create immense quantities of dust and smoke. PhD. and the death of millions of people from starvation and cold.edu/mnissani/pagepub/CH2. even these pessimists expect a return to normal climatic conditions within a few years. darken. One Cassandran and controversial prediction sounds a bit like the eerie twilight described in H. loss of many species. nuclear war might. Lives in the Balance: The Cold War and American Politics 1945-1991. MSc. NISSANI. the war's overall environmental impact will almost certainly be on the negative side.. Tom J. this will lower the quality of human life. However. Professor at Wayne State. Scientific E Research P/L 3 Dr.24 it would be far more severe during the growing season-late spring and summer in the northern latitudes.html There will be fewer people and less industrial and commercial activity long after the war. The dust and smoke might blanket. and cool the entire planet. Head of Geophysics Research.27 (B. By killing billions and destroying industrial infrastructures.wayne. MSc. halt or slow down the suspected trend of global warming. Still.) NUCLEAR WAR DECREASES CARRYING CAPACITY – DOESN’T PRESERVE FUTURE GENERATIONS. disruption of ecosystems and farms.

ADI 8 28 Malthus Abe **IMPACTS** .

1998 William R.edu/hs/philrel/replib. (__) BIODIVERSITY LOSS CAUSES HUMAN EXTINCTION. Negative Population Growth.ADI 8 29 Malthus Abe 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (BIODIVERSITY) (__) OVERPOPULATION CRUSHES BIODIVERSITY. 4 Carol A. there are ecological limits on the possibility of converting natural habitats into agricultural fields. Thus.html 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. Pimentel et al 1997:13). It is high time to see that this consequence was implicit in the 1798 essay by Malthus. http://billtotten. Pimentel et al 1994:355). 1998). Environmental Values 13:1 February. and humans have no technology to substitute for most of the services provided by diverse species (wild biota) (Pimentel et al 1994:355. 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. REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION. KATES. Biodiversity is also essential to a productive and sustainable agriculture. 1983. Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College.com/2005/03/malthus-more-relevant-than-ever. 1992:215 ff. CATTON..pdf Biodiversity loss may pose the greatest direct threat to human survival. 1998).blogspot. Professor Emeritus at Washington State University. nitrogen. We live in a world losing biodiversity at an unprecedented rate (Koopowitz and Kaye. . According to a recent survey. if it destabilizes the biosphere and interferes with recycling of such vital elements as carbon. 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). Tuxill.ithaca. http://www. Wilson. 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.

the average family has between five and eight children. 5 Jared. without our being able to associate them with faces.html Instead. and a visitor's sense is of being surrounded by a sea of children. . like Rwanda. I conclude that population pressure was one of the important factors behind the Rwandan genocide. They may operate again in Rwanda itself. Severe problems of overpopulation. http://www. if we don't succeed in solving them by our own actions.ditext. and the Maya that I described in Part 2 of this book. Similar motives may operate again in the future. environmental impact. American evolutionary biologist and physiologist. where population today is still increasing at 3% per year. in the collapses of Easter Island. in some other countries that. “Malthus in Africa: Rwanda’s Genocide”. Mangareva. women are giving birth to their first child at age 15. I would guess that similar motives were operating. fail to solve their underlying problems. In the case of Rwanda's collapse we can put faces and motives on the unpleasant solution. whether in the manner of Rwanda or in some other manner not of our devising. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.ADI 8 30 Malthus Abe 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (GENOCIDE) (__) OVERPOPULATION IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF GENOCIDE – RWANDA PROVES. DIAMOND. that Malthus's worst-case scenario [328] may sometimes be realized. and climate change cannot persist indefinitely: sooner or later they are likely to resolve themselves.com/diamond/10. and that Rwanda may be a distressing model of that scenario in operation.

http://www. and if rising temperatures are scorching crops.htm In the original Plan B. If croplands are eroding and harvests are shrinking.ADI 8 31 Malthus Abe 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (POVERTY) (__) OVERPOPULATION MAKES THE ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IMPOSSIBLE. BROWN.0. . a poverty eradication program—no matter how carefully crafted and well implemented—will not succeed. Plan B 2. but if the economy’s environmental support systems are collapsing. 6 Lester. president of the Earth Policy Institute.org/Books/PB2/PB2preface. if forests are shrinking. if water tables are falling and wells are going dry. poverty eradication will not be possible. we had a budget for eradicating poverty.earth-policy. if fisheries are collapsing. if rangelands are turning to desert and livestock are dying.

Melissa Walker. . Sr. the George Bush Library archivist. 2001.ADI 8 32 Malthus Abe 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (TERRORISM) (__) ROOT CAUSE OF TERRORISM IS OVERPOPULATION – PRESIDENTIAL STUDY CONCLUDES. It was from CRPS. 1 The Public Report of the Vice President's Task Force on Combatting Terrorism. This report concludes that the root cause of terrorism is overpopulation.org/issue_a. CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON POPULATION AND SECURITY.population-security. This report appears in its entirety. This determination the Vatican no doubt finds highly offensive since all of the solutions to the population problem undermine papal authority. http://www.htm Arguably the most authoritative work on terrorism was the February 1986 Report of the Vice President's Task Force on Combatting Terrorism. But not until October 29th did she receive her first request. On that day. Yet no mention of the study has appeared in the press since September 11. pulled it from her files in anticipation of interest by the media. chaired by Vice President George Bush.

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. Robert and Daniele. 3 Richard.org/Publications/Fact_Sheets/FS23/Summary. AND. 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. “The Security Demographic . . ENGELMAN.populationaction.ADI 8 33 Malthus Abe 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (WAR) (__) STUDIES CONCLUDE DECREASING POPULATION HAS A LINEAR CORRELATION WITH A DECREASED RISK OF ETHNIC WAR AND TERRORISM. or between state factions within territorial boundaries) that are generated by demographic factors may be much more significant than generally recognized. antigovernment insurgencies and terrorism resulting in multiple deaths). 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. Senior Research Associates for Population Action International. 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.Population and Civil Conflict After the Cold War.” Population Action International. ANASTASION. http://www. CINCOTTA. and worthy of more serious consideration by national security policymakers and researchers.shtml Do the dynamics of human population — rates of growth. Its conclusions — drawn from a review of literature and analyses of data from 180 countries. This relationship suggests that a range of policies and programs that promote demographic transition by encouraging small.

cnsnews.com/ViewNation.html "Human population growth is the paramount environmental issue. told Cybercast News Service. Oberlink argued that an increase in the emission of "greenhouse gases" -. we wouldn't have much of a climatic warming problem. NU Journal of Discovery. 1 Tom J. No second chance? Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?. Vol 3. This cooling is responsible for a thermal balance between the heat from the core reactor. "If we had half as many people. http://nujournal. MSc. a spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization. CHALKO.a process that is limited primarily by the atmosphere.ADI 8 34 Malthus Abe 2NC IMPACT – TURNS CASE (WARMING) (__) OVERPOPULATION CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING – GREENHOUSE GASES ARE A PRODUCT OF HUMAN CONSUMPTION. Group Calls for Population Control to Stop Global Warming.is a result of human activity.pdf Consequences of global warming are far more serious than previously imagined. May. Life on Earth is possible only because of the efficient cooling of the planetary interior . 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? . (__) GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES THE EARTH TO EXPLODE. 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.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070418a. "Global warming is a very serious problem." argued Oberlink." Ric Oberlink. BASNSAL." he said.net/core. The REAL danger for our entire civilization comes not from slow climate changes. 7 Monisha. so that the average temperature on Earth’s surface is about 13 degrees Celsius. The most serious consequence of such a ”meltdown” could be centrifugal segregation of unstable isotopes in the molten part of the spinning planetary core. but from overheating of the planetary interior." Although one part of the equation is what people do. CNSNEWS STAFF WRITER. but it is a subset of the overpopulation problem. the heat from the Sun and the radiation of heat into space. PhD. http://www.carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for climate change -. he said.. "like most environmental problems. the other part is how many there are.

In short. . for example. conscription would be reinstituted and some 18 million American men in the 18 through 26 year cohorts would provide the initial pool of draftees. senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies program at the Brookings Institution. In any case. a U. against all odds. In the extreme. full mobilization would be ordered. even at the "lowest" projections by the Census Bureau. And. can be readily discounted. as Figure 1 shows.org/forum_series/manning_military. But even if. The population projected for 2080. provided that the nation is willing to reinstitute conscription. the current size of the American population is more than adequate to support "worst-case" scenarios. however. indeed.htm Such concerns.S. be conscripted into military services. while substantially smaller than the current figure. a protracted conventional conflict involving millions of troops was considered an extremely long shot. 1990 Manning the American Military: Demographics and National Security. 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. http://www. few envisaged any situation that would require tens of millions of Americans to serve in the armed forces. rather than months or years. even before recent events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.npg. First. would still be larger than the population that sustained our armed forces during the second World War.ADI 8 35 Malthus Abe 2NC IMPACT – A2 HEGEMONY (__) LARGE POPULATIONS AREN’T KEY TO WAR FIGHTING – TECH AND CONSCRIPTION SOLVE. BINKIN. NPG Forum Series. total population size would not be an issue in the foreseeable future. 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. ending early either in negotiations or in escalation to nuclear conflict. The betting among serious analysts was that any conventional military confrontation between the two sides would be measured in terms of days or weeks. followed as necessary by men in the older age groups and perhaps expanded opportunities for American women to serve or. a replay of World War II between NATO and the Warsaw Pact that is.

including terrorism. who are impressionable and therefore more likely than older people to be drawn to extremist politics. a population increase that is due to a higher birth rate (as distinct from immigration) increases the number of young people in a society. and may thus reduce the incentives to innovate. POSNER.becker-posner-blog. 6 Richard. the more innovators there will be. This is a questionable argument for population growth. assuming that a fixed percentage of the population consists of innovators. whatever the size of the population. greater competition among innovators may reduce the potential returns to each innovator by increasing the number of simultaneous innovations. . as it ignores the fact that a fixed percentage of the population presumably also consists of potential Hitlers and Stalins and Pol Pots. Former 7TH Circuit Judge and Published expert on shit from Environmental analysis to Anti-Trust Law. 2) INCREASED COMPETITION DECREASES THE INCENTIVE TO INNOVATE. In addition. Moreover. and thus the absolute number of these monsters grows with population growth.html Some people also believe that the larger the population.com/archives/2006/10/should_we_worry.ADI 8 36 Malthus Abe 2NC IMPACT – A2 INNOVATION (__) INNOVATION TURN IS STUPID – TWO REASONS 1) INCREASING POPULATION INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF SOCIOPATHS AND A YOUNG POPULATION ENCOURAGES GENOCIDAL EXTREMISM. Should We Worry about Overpopulation?. http://www.

ADI 8 37 Malthus Abe **ETHICS** .

ac.) COMMUNAL OBLIGATION TO NOT HARM THOSE WHO WILL COME AFTER OURSELVES. THAT’S HARDIN. CLAIMS OF THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE IGNORE THAT A STABLE ENVIRONMENT IS A PRECONDITION FOR HUMAN LIVELIHOOD.uk That there are ecological constraints on autonomy is. ecological science has illuminated the interdependent relationships which sustain life on Earth. is always a matter of degree and always partial. humans living in industrial society cannot will themselves to be able to live by breathing polluted air and drinking contaminated water. Are prescribed limits to human population growth ethically defensible? www. it is time we extend our moral consideration to all species and systems. (B. we are obligated to ensure the continuance of life is not undermined by our species’ incessant growth. Institute for Environment. we have developed collective bonds which tie us to an extended community beyond our immediate families. For whatever reason. 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). An entity possesses autonomy when it has the capacity to live according to its species’ natural proclivities. Lancaster University. MYERS. 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. however. I assume. 1999 Jeffrey. As a social species." n28 On the other hand.doc I contend therefore. widely accepted consensus of the morality of a position may reflect a preexisting morality that individuals. the same community remains. which seems to be the only account of autonomy on offer in the argument from principle. Evolution may have developed a genetic predisposition to ensure the survival through time of our genetic endowment.’ Our obligations to future generations stem from our sense of common community.uk/depts/philosophy/awaymave/onlineresources/diss05/jenny%20myers. so be it.) OUR OBLIGATION TO FUTURE GENERATIONS PRECEDES LOGIC AND SHOULD BE PRIORITIZED. and the essence of that community is continuity and succession. HUMPHREY. As Leopold implored. predicated upon our shared commitment to the Axiom of Future Value. “Although some people die and others are born. Recognizing the impact human overpopulation has on the continuity of life on planet Earth. Of course. no such conclusion is logically warranted. Autonomy. This conflation of "what is" with "what should be" (between "is" and "ought") has been described as the "naturalistic fallacy. The fact that we may have some universally recognized concern for the future does not convert that concern into a moral imperative. 2 School of Politics.” (B. we merely have to accept that this capacity operates within ecological constraints. prevent us from conceptualizing autonomy in terms of the capacity described above. we humans accept (within undefined limits) this moral concern.ac. uncontroversial (although some prefer to frame them as ecological preconditions for it). As de-Shalit says.) ERR NEGATIVE – WHAT CONSTITUTES AUTONOMY IS DEFINED BY THE CONDITION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT. Ecological limits do not. Cultural and moral evolution has enabled us to widen our moral universe. and Autonomy: a Problem of Wishful Thinking. through their capacity for moral "intuition. This brings us back to the idea of ‘species life’. 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 already stressed. .” essex. “Ecology.ADI 8 38 Malthus Abe 2NC ETHICS – A2 IMMORAL (1/2) (__) CARRYING CAPACITY CONSTRAINS ETHICS – (A. At the same time. As Edward Goldsmith has pointed out. WE SHOULD SEEK TO PROMOTE ALL LIFE. collectively ‘the land. but that does not mean that this fact of nature becomes a fact of morality." have expressed. SEPTEMBER 5 Jenny. University of Nottingham. NOT JUST HUMAN. 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. (__) FUTURE GENERATIONS (A. recognizing common ideologies which serve to shape our very identities. in which humans play an essential part.lancs.) SUCCESSFULLY PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT IS THE FIRST OBLIGATION. Democracy. GABA. beyond certain limits these things just will disable us. Philosophy and Public Policy. The right to be free to ‘live and blossom’ in your own way is justified in terms of protection of this capacity. 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.

and it does not involve doing evil so that good may come of it. one should indeed feel the loss of even one. We have seen that there is no sound Kantian reason for abandoning this natural consequentialist interpretation. CUMMISKEY. one's own subjective concerns do not have overriding importance. one must give appropriate practical consideration to the unconditional value of rational beings and to the conditional value of happiness. After all. Assoc Professor of Philosophy at Bates College. thus. 140-196] Consequentialism thus provides an indirect justification for our intuitive conviction that we should not demand that the innocent sacrifice themselves. In principle. Similarly. Respect for rational beings requires that in deciding what to do. 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. 1996 David. 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. this may well not be grounds for reproach. Nonetheless. the most natural interpretation of the demand that one give equal respect to all rational beings leads to a consequentialist normative theory. one should still feel regret and mourn the people who are lost. however.ADI 8 39 Malthus Abe 2NC ETHICS – A2 IMMORAL (2/2) (__) 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. Kant's moral theory. simply does not provide a more direct and indefeasible justification for deontological constraints. Since agent-centered constraints require a non-value-based rationale. Similarly. in the highly unusual case where it would truly be best to kill some to save others. Still. if someone is unable to do so. 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. the objective end of moral action is the existence of rational beings. the goal is to save each and every person. In particular. in such a situation I must try to force my attention on the good I am doing and thereby enable myself to act. and also that we should not sacrifice the innocent. a conscientious Kantian moral agent may be required to kill one in order to save two. According to Kant. a consequentialist interpretation does not require sacrifices that a Kantian ought to consider unreasonable. pg. even though sacrificing some to save others is sometimes the right thing to do. Nonetheless. Kantian Consequentialism. . although it is true that I should have done the nasty deed.

become public issues concerning society as a whole when that society will bear the cost of an additional life.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. is to prevent harm to others. Mill’s Harm Principle specifically addressed the issue of reproduction in overcrowded nations. http://www. He asserted that individuals must relinquish personal freedom when the consequences of their actions will bring harm to other people. suggesting that reproductive freedoms.uk/users/philosophy/awaymave/onlineresources/diss05/jenny%20myers. traditionally held to be private matters. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community. MYERS. His own good.lancs. 2K5 Jenny N. The severity of the situation warrants application of the Harm Principle compelling us to forgo certain individual liberties. Philosophy and Public Policy @ Lancaster University.. either physical or moral. Are prescribed limits to human population growth ethically defensible. against his will.ADI 8 40 Malthus Abe 2NC ETHICS – A2 DON’T EVAL CONSEQUENCES (__) 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. As I have shown. . Institute for Environment. overpopulation now threatens to degrade the quality of life of all the Earth’s inhabitants. is not a sufficient warrant.ac.

knowledge of historical precedence..lancs. Philosophy and Public Policy. KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE AND SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE GIVE US A GOOD ENOUGH IDEA THAT WE CAN MAKE ECOLOGICAL PREDICTIONS. of the effects that our environmental policies will have upon future generations.ac. 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. Too much political inaction has been justified by ‘insufficient scientific evidence’ in the face of real threats.” . MYERS. Uncertainty about future conditions cannot be used to justify moral inaction either. we can make predictions about the circumstances in which the lives of future generations will be lived.ADI 8 41 Malthus Abe 2NC ETHICS – A2 PREDICTIONS K (__) FORESIGHT. Uncertainty about future circumstances does not excuse inaction on any environmental issue. Are prescribed limits to human population growth ethically defensible? www. albeit conjectural. On the assumption that those policies remain unchanged and that other relevant factors will vary in certain ways. 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. Our foresight. as Norton critiques Passmore’s argument. Lancaster University. The generation to which we belong has some understanding.. 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. 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. and in every case our confidence depends upon how far into the future our anticipations extend.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.uk/depts/philosophy/awaymave/onlineresources/diss05/jenny%20myers. Institute for Environment. partial and uncertain in many respects. ERR AFFIRMATIVE – WE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO ADOPT A PRECAUTIONARY METHODOLOGY WHEN IT COMES TO ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS. These biases result from political and economic models promoting short-term thinking. I believe. SEPTEMBER 5 Jenny. 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.

http://www. to be generous with posterity's is quite another. 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. The Social Contract.com/ cgi-bin/showarticle. HARDIN. 1 Garett. Prof. Since every speaker is a member of some ethnic group it is always possible to charge him with ethnocentrism. INACTION NOW MEANS COMPLETE ANNIHILATION OF AN ETHNIC GROUP LATER.pl?articleID=1025&terms=%20 To be generous with one's own possessions is one thing. I think. of Human Ecology Emeritus. Is it not desirable that at least some of the grandchildren of people now living should have a decent place in which to live? . either in the form of a world food bank or that of unrestricted immigration. institute a ruinous system of the commons. “Living on a Lifeboat”. Fall. is the point that must be gotten across to those who would.ADI 8 42 Malthus Abe 2NC ETHICS – A2 RACIST! (__) OUR ARGUMENT ISN’T RACIST – WE HAVE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS. from a commendable love of distributive justice. This.thesocialcontract.

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.uk/users/philosophy/awaymave/onlineresources/diss05/jenny%20myers.doc It is my contention that we have moral obligations to the community of life. Something from a world beyond the human mind. Philosophy and Public Policy @ Lancaster University. A comprehensive environmental ethics reallocates value across the whole continuum.ac. Institute for Environment. and with them levels of value emerge that did not before exist. not been valued for much of human history. Human evaluators are among its products (Rolston 1998. after all.lancs. Value increases in the emergent climax but is continuously present in the composing precedents. acknowledging that life and the processes which engender it are intrinsically valuable. http://www. . our experience. is received into our mind. beyond human experience. The system is value-able. As human beings emerged from and now both shape and are shaped by this process. pg. As Rolston writes. 510).. But I suggest that the value of life exists irregardless of our ability to asses its value. acting in order to ensure its continuance is undoubtedly in our best interest as a species. 2K5 Jenny N. able to produce value. Are prescribed limits to human population growth ethically defensible. It has. MYERS.ADI 8 43 Malthus Abe 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.

ADI 8 44 Malthus Abe **AFF ANS** .

"What will we do when the [gasoline] pumps run dry?" . SIMON. POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. The Great Lakes are not dead.hampshire. POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. when at least 320 million people in India were suffering from hunger. falling to 8.there came gasoline cheaper than since the 1930s. There is enough food for every man. Materials. and fair-minded scholars are beginning to change their views on environmental changes.S. making it difficult to afford enough food to feed a family. popdev. . Robert H.hampshire.S. in chapter 00 you will read how William Baumol and Wallace Oates began by believing that the environment was deteriorating. The Famine 1975 forecast by the Paddock brothers that we would see famine deaths in the U.pdf A narrow focus on human numbers obscures the way different economic and political systems operate to perpetuate poverty and inequality. In Brazil. popdev. the government tripled its rice and wheat exports.) ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SYSTEMS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR POVERTY. It says nothing about the concentration of much wealth in a few hands. In the late 1990s.) THE PROBLEM IS DISTRIBUTION. HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE. foods. Indeed.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_40. 6 10 Reasons to Rethink ‘Overpopulation’. more than 1. have lessened in our cities. Globally. The evidence is now available. urbanization. one percent of the land owners control almost half of the country’s arable land. especially in Europe. The U. and women’s work outside the home. and today world agriculture produces 17% more calories per person than it did 30 years ago.ADI 8 45 Malthus Abe 2AC BLOCK (1/4) (__) NON UNIQUE – THE CRUNCH ISN’T COMING. 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. 1994 Julian. In 2002. yet more than one in ten American households are either experiencing hunger or are at the risk of it. POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.7 births per woman. Smith School of Business. People go hungry because they do not have the land on which to grow food or the money with which to buy it. The main pollutants. The average is now 2.rhsmith. 2K6 10 Reasons to Rethink ‘Overpopulation’. but their detailed long-term statistical studies brought them to doubt their original view. To repeat. instead they offer better sport fishing than ever. and other natural resources have become more available rather than more scarce throughout the centuries. However. popdev. demographers agree that the era of rapid growth is over. The UN projects that world population will eventually stabilize.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_40. A number of countries. every forecast of the doomsayers has turned out flat wrong. NOT LACK OF FOOD.hampshire. Many governments have failed to make food security a priority. The Ultimate Resource II: People. HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE. birth rates have fallen in almost every part of the world. the 225 people who comprise the ‘ultra-rich’ had a combined wealth of over US $1 trillion.umd. Since then.edu/faculty/jsimon/Ultimate_Resource/ It may well be that the state of thought about the effect of population on the environment. Population growth rates peaked in the 1960s due to dramatic reductions in death rates and increased life expectancy. especially the particulates which have killed people for years. woman and child to have more than the recommended daily calorie intake. (B. are now concerned about declining population growth as many women have only one child. on television was followed by gluts in agricultural markets. University of Maryland. (__) NO CORRELATION BETWEEN POPULATION GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL COLLAPSE (A.3 billion in 2175 (__) ENVIRONMENTAL DOOMSAYERS ARE WRONG—CONSENSUS OF EXPERTS AGREE. including unfavorable terms of trade and the debt burden. and Environment. 6 10 Reasons to Rethink ‘Overpopulation’. HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE. It ignores the legacy of colonialism and the continuing unequal relationship between rich and poor countries.pdf Global food production has consistently kept pace with population growth.pdf World population is still growing and is expected to reach 9 billion by the year 2050.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_40. and more land is owned by multinational corporations than all the peasants combined. After Paul Ehrlich's primal scream . equivalent to the annual income of the poorest 47% of the world’s people. Metals. with increasing education. 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. http://www. is the largest food producer in the world.2 billion people earn less than $1 per day.

Anti-immigrant groups tied to white supremacists strategically deploy population fears to appeal to liberal environmentalists. and sheer incompetence of governments. is doing just fine.” Free Inquiry. And that situation we do not have. India. and hordes of dangerous Third World men drive home the message that ‘those people’ outnumber ‘us. NARVESON. HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE. But Malthus didn't have that in mind. and thereby people of color becoming the majority. Even though women on welfare have on average fewer than two children. Vol.S. concern with starvation in today's world would be of marginal interest by any reasonable standard. poor. Ethiopia. cruelty. popdev.ADI 8 46 Malthus Abe 2AC BLOCK (2/4) (__) OVERPOPULATION FEARS ARE RACIST. nativist policymakers are urging white women to have more babies to reduce the economy’s dependence on immigrant labor.hampshire. But the world's capacity to cope with such disasters is beyond doubt. POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. the image of the overbreeding ‘welfare queen’ remains firmly fixed in the white imagination. 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. with the densest population on earth. In Europe. Even China. 1994 Jan. and to varying degrees elsewhere. 6 10 Reasons to Rethink ‘Overpopulation’. Spring What about current starvation. 14. . He supposed that even with hard work and reasonable thought for the morrow. there would surely have been no need for its high-powered and heavy-handed efforts at population control. which in the past has had dreadful famines. Harvard professor Samuel Huntington argues that high numbers of Latino immigrants threaten a unified American Anglo- Protestant culture and identity. now that its government has given up on enforced communism on the farm. economy as well as the global economic forces that drive many people to migrate. there is a strong link between negative images of Third World overpopulation and racist views of African Americans as burdens on society.edu/projects/dt/pdfs/DifferenTakes_40. prof of philosophy @ U of Waterloo in Canada. If that were all we had to worry about. Of course there is the occasional pocket of desperation resulting from local floods. is pulling its enormous weight quite well.pdf Negative media images of starving African babies. pregnant women of color. Consider countries such as the Netherlands. “A Dissenting Viewpoint: The Overpopulation Scare. The former we have in plenty--in Somalia.S.’ Fear of overpopulation in the Third World often translates into fear of increasing immigration to the West. had it always had a market farm economy. volcanic explosions. and starvation due to the lack of sufficient resources to sustain life. In short. imbecility. 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. The demonization of immigrants ignores their positive contributions to the U. Yet Holland is self-sufficient overall in food production. and the like. humankind wouldn't be able to survive without severely cutting back on the production of humans. In the U. you may ask? The answer is that we must carefully distinguish between starvation due to the inhumanity. (__) EMPIRICALLY DENIED – MULTIPLE EXAMPLES PROVE POPULATIONS ARE SUSTAINABLE.

what are the totalitarian consequences about creating a Bureau of Population Control. although they usually are -. 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."Forward to an Ecological Society!" Lastly. “The Population Myth—I”.com/library/bookchin/perspectives8. the neo-Malthusians literally freeze reality as it is. 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. 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. it fosters brutalization and de grades the neo-Malthusians even more than it degrades the victims of privilege. for all I know. Emeritus @ Rampo College." anything we have to say about population is basically meaningless. Prof.not rituals. The viewpoint not only justifies privilege. The Social Roots of Hunger This arithmetic mentality which disregards the social context of demographics is incredibly short-sighted. can remove this all commanding social compulsion -. landowner. if they are conditioned by neo-MaIalthusian thinking." or. it is the ordinary people who are to blame for having too many children or insisting on living too long-. they mere extend. must be abandoned if we are to achieve an ecological society is rarely discussed. We are taught to accept society. They are "futurists" in the most shallow sense of the word. remove the earth's forests.ADI 8 47 Malthus Abe 2AC BLOCK (3/4) (__) TURN – MALTHUSIAN ENVIRONMENTAL CRITICISM STIFLES ANY ATTEMPTS TO CREATE THE SOCIAL CHANGE WHICH IS NECESSARY TO SOLVE INEVITABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION. if there is a "population problem" and famine in Africa. But the most sinister feature about neo- Malthusianism is the extent to which it actively deflects us from dealing with the social origins of our ecological problems -. Competing firms in a "dog-eat-dog" market must outproduce each other if they are to remain in existence. not as they should be or even could be. by reducing us to studies of line graphs.an argument advanced by Malthus nearly two centuries ago with respect to England's poor. 8. But whether the whole system called capitalism (forgive me!). yoga. BOOKCHIN. about registering AIDS victims. be it corporate in the west or bureaucratic in the east. http://anarchism. what is basically old and given. arms merchant. Presumably. including its anti-ecological sensibilities. the extent to which it places the blame for them on the victims of hunger rather than those who victimize them. There are books and articles aplenty that explain "how to" become a "morally responsible" banker. behavior. will rally around the cry of the Left Greens -. Thousands may rally around "Earth First!"'s idiotic slogan -. They must plunder the soil. If we are concerned. . and statistical tables."Back to the Pleistocene!" -. any statist system of society. Green Perspective No. 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. Only a radical restructuring of society as a whole. Their numerical extrapolations do not construct any reality that is new.html Secondly.indeed.but because they must simply survive. neo-Malthusian thinking is the most backward in thinking out the implications of its demands. or be guided by profit oriented behavior. or encounter groups. "developer. This procedure places us under the tyranny of the status quo and divests us of any ability to think about radically changing the world. kill off its wildlife.hence the absurdity of the spiritualistic pablum in which Americans are currently immersed -. entrepreneur. not "utopians" in the best sense. July. and values as they are. 1988 Murray. bar graphs.jesusradicals. today.but few. statistic by statistic. The biosphere will eventually be destroyed whether five billion or fifty million live on the planet. and rightly so. pollute its air and waterways not because their intentions are necessarily bad. valuable as some of these practices may be (including "improving" our earning capacity and "power" to command).

with a mountain of X on your hands. The Pioneer Fund supports the eugenics journal Mankind Quarterly. Zero Population Growth and FAIR (see Common Threads. should not be underestimated. prof of philosophy @ U of Waterloo in Canada.3 2.4 (__) TECH SOLVES THE CRUNCH – AGRICULTURE PROVES. Increase the price of crop X. Hardin is a major link between population and environment groups and the anti-immigration movement." in all this.ADI 8 48 Malthus Abe 2AC BLOCK (4/4) (__) HARDIN’S WRITINGS ARE NEO-NAZI PROPAGANDA – HE TOUTS OVERPOPULATION AS A WAY TO ADVANCE THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT.S. Donald Mann of Negative Population Growth (NPG). Other key links are Paul and Anne Ehrlich. http://cwpe. has lately shrunk to something like the size of an average living room (twenty-seven square meters). to Population-Environment Balance. who founded U. the major financier of eugenics research in North America. surpluses burgeoning to the point of political embarrassment have been the rule. 14. Under the circumstances. “A Dissenting Viewpoint: The Overpopulation Scare.2 The Pioneer Fund also finances FAIR and the work of Garrett Hardin. technology enables you to get more food from less land.org/node/69 The role of the Pioneer Fund. . English.” Free Inquiry. and you will soon find yourself. In the case of agriculture. “Dangerous Intersections”. HARTMANN. 6 Betsy. a forum for neo-Nazi style 'scholarship'. serving as advisor. we will be able to do it on much less than that again. FAIR and Americans for Immigration Control. There is no reason to doubt that. July 15.The minimum amount of land necessary to support one human. In recent months NPG has been putting out expensive. The journal supplies much of the false documentation for the eugenic conclusions of The Bell Curve. as agricultural technology advances. Common Target). NARVESON. I am told. COMMITTEE ON WOMEN. virulent anti-immigration adds in major magazines and newspapers. Vol. AND THE ENVIRONMENT. in any modern country. for example. Spring What the doomsday set has failed to appreciate is the role of knowledge. the idea that we are "running out" of arable land unless "we do something" is just not sensible. In those countries with substantial farm subsidies on top of market economies. the infamous advocate of the worst kind of population control: lifeboat ethics-better to let the poor die than to sink our privileged lifeboat. POPULATION. specifically of what is broadly called "technology. 1994 Jan. and indicate willingness to buy an unlimited amount of it. and John Tanton.