malthus (adi)

8/14/2019 Malthus (ADI)

1/48

ADI 8 1Malthus Abe

MALTHUS

MALTHUS....................................................................................................................................................................................1Hingstman 21.................................................................................................................................................................................11NC THE NEGATIVE STRATEGY..........................................................................................................................................21NC THE NEGATIVE STRATEGY..........................................................................................................................................3

1NC THE NEGATIVE STRATEGY..........................................................................................................................................4**UNIQUENESS**......................................................................................................................................................................52NC UNIQUENESS GENERIC................................................................................................................................................62NC UNIQUENESS AFRICA (1/2)..........................................................................................................................................72NC UNIQUENESS AFRICA (2/2)..........................................................................................................................................82NC UNIQUENESS INDIA......................................................................................................................................................92NC UNIQUENESS 2036.......................................................................................................................................................102NC UNIQUENESS SPECIES EXTINCTION.......................................................................................................................112NC UNIQUENESS A2 DENSITY.........................................................................................................................................122NC UNIQUENESS A2 EMPIRICALLY DENIED................................................................................................................132NC UNIQUENESS A2 POPULATION FORECASTING FAILS.........................................................................................142NC UNIQUENESS A2 SIMON.............................................................................................................................................15**LINKS**.................................................................................................................................................................................16

2NC LINK LINEAR................................................................................................................................................................172NC LINK DISEASE...............................................................................................................................................................182NC LINK FAMINE................................................................................................................................................................192NC LINK POLLUTION ........................................................................................................................................................202NC LINK A2 AGRICULTURE..............................................................................................................................................212NC LINK A2 AQUACULTURE............................................................................................................................................222NC LINK A2 FREE MARKET (S)........................................................................................................................................232NC LINK A2 TECH (1/2)......................................................................................................................................................242NC LINK A2 TECH (2/2)......................................................................................................................................................252NC LINK A2 SPACE.............................................................................................................................................................262NC LINK A2 NUCLEAR WAR D/T.....................................................................................................................................27**IMPACTS**............................................................................................................................................................................282NC IMPACT TURNS CASE (BIODIVERSITY)..................................................................................................................29

2NC IMPACT TURNS CASE (GENOCIDE)..........................................................................................................................302NC IMPACT TURNS CASE (POVERTY)............................................................................................................................312NC IMPACT TURNS CASE (TERRORISM).......................................................................................................................322NC IMPACT TURNS CASE (WAR).....................................................................................................................................332NC IMPACT TURNS CASE (WARMING)..........................................................................................................................342NC IMPACT A2 HEGEMONY.............................................................................................................................................352NC IMPACT A2 INNOVATION............................................................................................................................................36**ETHICS**...............................................................................................................................................................................372NC ETHICS A2 IMMORAL (1/2).........................................................................................................................................382NC ETHICS A2 IMMORAL (2/2).........................................................................................................................................392NC ETHICS A2 DONT EVAL CONSEQUENCES.............................................................................................................402NC ETHICS A2 PREDICTIONS K.......................................................................................................................................412NC ETHICS A2 RACIST!.....................................................................................................................................................422NC ETHICS A2 VALUE TO LIFE........................................................................................................................................43**AFF ANS**.............................................................................................................................................................................442AC BLOCK (1/4)......................................................................................................................................................................452AC BLOCK (2/4)......................................................................................................................................................................462AC BLOCK (3/4)......................................................................................................................................................................472AC BLOCK (4/4)......................................................................................................................................................................48

Hingstman 21


2/48

ADI 8 2Malthus 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, 1987Longitudinal 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 theconditions of scarcity employed under GFRS, saved lives come at the expense of exponential reduction in the resourcesupply. This means a loss of2.5 lives over a period of 30 years, for each present life. Other estimates range from 1.2 to 7.6Under conditions of technological advancement, the loss may be even more severe since current resources become

more productive to future generations.


3/48

ADI 8 3Malthus Abe


OVERPOPULATION CAUSES GENOCIDAL WARS THAT DESTROY CULTURAL DIVERSITY THAT CAUSES

EXTINCTION.

KODEL, M.D., family physician in private practice in Los Angeles, volunteer t for The Children's Nature Institute, 4Gary 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 contributedto the development of a style of war unique to civilization: the destruction of human cultures causing reductions inhuman diversity - genocide - rendering humanity vulnerable to changes in man-made and earthly conditions leading tohuman extinction. In contrast, tribal warfare evolved as a way for tribes to preserve their cultural identities. By preventingtribes 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.


4/48

ADI 8 4Malthus Abe


WE HAVE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO PRESERVE CARRYING CAPACITY ABSOLUTE REVERENCE

FOR HUMAN LIFE IRONICALLY LEADS TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE VERY THING HELD MOST

SACRED.

HARDIN, PROFESSOR EMERITUS HUMAN ECOLOGY AT UCSB, 1991Garret, 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 thatthe production factors are already severely over-stressed. In Ethiopia, land that should not be farmed is farmed, with aresultant loss of soil; too many animals are kept on the pasture lands, leading to the loss of soil and the replacement of "sweetgrass" by weeds; and bushes and trees are removed from steep slopes resulting in a loss of soil that ultimately makes thereestablishment of woody plants impossible. (Internationalists should note that soil lost from the mountains of Ethiopiabecomes silt in Egypt's Lake Nasser, thus shortening the useful lifetime of the High Aswam Dam.) When a country isoverpopulated-when its population is greater than the carrying capacity of its land, whatever standard of living is used inreaching a judgement saving lives today by direct gifts of food ensures that more lives will be lost tomorrow because of theincreased 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 weare concerned with here is its related meaning of sacrosanct or inviolable. When disputants say that human life is sacredthey 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 theenvironment, not human beings, is sacrosanct. The moment this proposition is advanced the conventional moralistexpostulates: "Oh! You mean you prefer the life of dickey-birds to human beings? You prefer redwood trees to people?" Wehave all heard such contemptuous questions. The questioner misses the point. Ecologists confer sacrosanctity on thecarrying 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 istrying to improve the quality of life over a long period of time. Redwood trees and dickey-birds are seen as the symbols ofthe good life for human beings. Environmental extremists may talk of an undefined intrinsic value of the environment, but weneed not follow them down this dubious rhetorical path. When we recommend that Ethiopians refrain from overgrazing theirpastures and overharvesting their woody mountains we need not demand that they worship the landscape, merely that theytake thought of what the environment will have to offer their descendants. A time-sensitive system of ethics cannot be blindto environmental values.


5/48

ADI 8 5Malthus Abe

**UNIQUENESS**


6/48

ADI 8 6Malthus Abe

2NC UNIQUENESS GENERIC

(__) THE NEWEST EVIDENCE CONCLUDES THAT PRIOR STUDIES ONLY UNDERESTIMATE THE

PROBLEM. WITHOUT COERCIVE POPULATION CONTROL; THE EARTH WILL BE DEAD BY 2050.

MCDOUGALL, Co-Chair of the Optimum Population Trust, AND GUILLEBAUD, Professor of Family Planning andReproductive Health at University college of London, 7Rosamund, an environmental research and campaigning group; John, Too many people: Earths population problem, Optimum Population Trust,

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.earth.html , June 7

The Earth faces a future of rising populations and growing strains on the planet. Whatever else the future holds, significantpopulation increase is inevitable and the current UN forecast of 9.2 billion by 2050 itself a 40 per cent increase on the6.7 billion in 2007 may turn out to be an underestimate. The environmental damage resulting from populationincrease is already widespread and serious, ranging from climate change to shortages of basic resources such as food andwater. By 2050, humanity is likely to require the biological capacity of two Earths. Without action, longages of humans the prime cause of all shortages of resources may cause parts of the planet to become uninhabitable, with governmentspushed towards coercive population control measures as a regrettable but lesser evil than conflict and suffering.

(__) EARTH HAS OVERSHOT ITS CARRYING CAPACITY; WE NEED TO BE AROUND 4 BILLION.

LAFFERTY, SCIENCE REPORTER FOR THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, 7Mike, science reporter, Columbus Dispatch, Too many people, not enough Earth; Scientists debate how much population the world can sustain,

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


7/48

ADI 8 7Malthus 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.

KATES, Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College, 4Carol A., REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION, Environmental Values 13:1 February, http://www.ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/replib.pdf

Sub-Saharan Africahas the worst prognosis for environmental degradation, food shortages, disease and politicalinstability and violence. Rapid population growth 22 will be a significant factor contributing to undernourishmentin the region (FAO 2002). Even assuming an increase in agricultural output (by clearing forests and increasing use ofirrigation and fertilizer), as well as greater equality in access to food , the absolute number of undernourished people isexpected to rise in such extremely poor, high fertility countries as Angola, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo,Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Somalia (FAO 2002). The CIA report is blunt: poor infrastructure and distribution,political instability, and chronic poverty will lead to malnourishment in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa(CIA 2001:79).In 2000, Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for almost half of infectious disease deaths globally (CIA 2000). Sixty-five percent ofall deaths in the region are caused by infectious diseases (CIA 2000). The CIA believes the most plausible scenario over thenext 20 years is deterioration, then limited improvement, i.e. a worsening of the infectious disease threat, especiallyAIDS/HIV, for about 10 years, followed by a fitful decrease. However, because of high fertility and a large cohort of youngpeople in developing countries, the CIA expects persistent infectious diseases which will have a disruptive effect on global

economic, social, and political dynamics (CIA 2000).The CIA 2001 report on demographic trends projected three possible futures for the world in 50 years: Fertility Drives theTrends, Orderly Progress, and What Can Go Wrong Will Go Wrong. The last, most pessimistic, scenario will strike many asthe most likely. It projects very rough times ahead, especially in the next 10-15 years, with increased democratizationbut a relatively shrinking middle class producing instability in the world and even a breakdown of order in some

places (such as Pakistan or Lagos, Nigeria) where the U.S. might not be able to intervene. In 30 years, world incomeinequality may increase, producing large pools of angry people, especially young men, who may turn to violence andterrorism (CIA 2001:97). However, in all scenarios, the report imagines that the U.S. and other rich nations will remainrelatively secure and affluent (globalization has been successful CIA 2001:97), protected by their military and economicpower. The CIA does not seem concerned that environmental damage in developing countries could directly affect theecosystems of developed countries, or trigger the wholesale ecosystem collapse which many scientists consider a genuinethreat.It is instructive to compare the CIAs scenario with the most recent UN Environmental Program projections of possible future

(2032) outcomes of demographic trends and environmental challenges. The four UN scenarios are 1) Markets First(corporate-dominated global capitalist expansion), 2) Policy First (governments agree to meet specific environmental andsocial targets), 3) Security First ( a world divided between rich and poor, with escalating conflicts caused by environmentaland social-economic stresses), and 4) Sustainability First (reinvigorated NGOs promote global grass roots democracy, asaffluent groups, especially in North America and Europe, rejecting the values of consumerism, competition, andindividualism, turn away from a free-market approach to development and, with the aid of breakthroughs in biotechnologyand nanotechnology, take actions to preserve the environment and create an equitable global distribution of wealth) (UNEP2002:Ch.4).Three things are striking about these scenarios. First, the Security First and Markets First models seem to reflectthe assumptions made in the CIA report, suggesting the policy and sustainability options were not being seriouslyconsidered by the academic, corporate and intelligence experts who advise that organization. Second, the notion thatenvironmental sustainability could depend on a sudden and widespread shift from individualistic to altruistic values (UNEP2002:332) is a sufficient reason to despair of the possibility of saving the ecosystem. It seems prudent to consider furtheroptions. And third, although in every scenario the UN report cites continued population growth as a significant,negative environmental factor (e.g. UNEP 2002: 333, 337, 338, 358, 361), the only solution given is a nonspecificreference to policy actions and behavioral changes which (somehow) speed up the transition to slower [population]growth in the Policy and Sustainability scenarios (UNEP 2002:323). However, all of the scenarios assume continuedgrowth in global population, tailing off ... as more countries pass through the demographic transition (UNEP 2002:323).None of the scenarios suggest specific, effective measures to reduce population. It seems population programs havebecome so politically incorrect since Cairo that they cannot even be part of a speculative exercise!

[CONTINUEDNO TEXT DELETED]


8/48

ADI 8 8Malthus Abe

2NC UNIQUENESS AFRICA (2/2)

[CONTINUEDNO TEXT DELETED]

The sustainability and policy scenarios for Africa assume stronger economic growth in that region (stimulated by amore equitable sharing of wealth), will create a demand for higher living standards which, coupled with high fertility,will actually produce more land degradation than a free market approach (UNEP 2002:358). Sustainability First has the

second worst outcome for forests (after Security First), but very little natural forest remains in Northern Africa in anyof the scenarios (UNEP 2002:358-9). Pressures on biodiversity increase between 2002 and 2032 in all scenarios (UNEP2002:359). Under the Markets First and Security First Scenarios, nothing mitigates a Malthusian disaster in Africa. Inshort, it would seem that rapid population reduction offers the best, perhaps only hope of preventing further

environmental destruction in the developing world. If that is not achieved, then altruistic re-distribution of wealth (or, atleast massive food and medical aid) is likely to offer the best hope of improving the welfare of millions of people in poorcountries.23


9/48

ADI 8 9Malthus Abe

2NC UNIQUENESS INDIA

(__) INDIA IS OVERPOPULATED IT HAS THE FASTEST GROWING POPULATION IN THE WORLD.

BYRANT,professor in the Department of Developmental and Cell Biology @ Berkley, 5Peter J. (P.H.D), BIODIVERSITY and CONSERVATION, Hypertext Book, University of California,http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec24/b65lec24.htm

In India, where family-planning efforts have been less aggressive, the population is growing much faster. With 947million inhabitants today, India mayovertake China as the world's most populous nation, surpassing the 2 billion markin 2025.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm#high_2http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm#high_2http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm#high_2http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Papers/gkh1/chap1.htm#high_2


10/48

ADI 8 10Malthus Abe

2NC UNIQUENESS 2036

(__) THE CRUNCH IS COMING IN 2036.

DUNCAN, INSTITUTE ON ENERGY AND MAN, 2000Nov 13, The Peak of World Oil Production, www.dieoff.org

Australian writer Reg Morrison likewise foresees that overshoot and collapse is where humanity is headed. In his scenario

(i.e. no formal model), the world population rises to about 7.0 billion in the 2036. Thence it plunges to 3.2 billion in2090 an average loss of 71.4 million people per year (i.e. deaths minus births) during 54 years.Given the current shape of the human population graph, those indicators also spell out a much larger and , from ourpoint of view, more ominous message: the human plague cycle is right on track for a demographically normal climaxand collapse. Not only have our genes managed to conceal from us that we are entirely typical mammals and therefore

vulnerable to all of evolution's customary checks and balances, but also they have contrived to lock us so securely into

the plague cycle that they seem almost to have been crafted for that purpose. Gaia is running like a Swiss watch.(Morrison, 1999)
http://www.dieoff.org/http://www.dieoff.org/


11/48

ADI 8 11Malthus Abe

2NC UNIQUENESS SPECIES EXTINCTION

(__) SPECIES EXTINCTION IS ONE THOUSAND TIMES THE NORMAL RATE; WE ARE WITNESSING A

MASS EXTINCTION.


Rates of species extinction, which appear to be accelerating, (UNEP 2002:298) have been described by leading scientistsas appalling (WS 1997). On one estimate, one species extinction occurs every 20 minutes (Levin and Levin 2002:6).The background (normal) rate of species extinction, estimated from fossil records, is thought to be about[ONE] 1 birdor mammal species lost every500-1000 years (UNEP 2002:121). Estimates of present extinction rates range from 100 to1,000 times normal, with most estimates at 1,000. The percent of bird (12), mammal (18), fish (5) and flowering plant (8)species threatened with extinction is consistent with that estimate. And the rates are certain to riseand to do soexponentiallyas natural habitats continue to dwindle (Lovejoy 2002:70). The extinction rate for some organisms may be1,000 to 10,000-times faster than background rates (Pimentel et al 1999:30). Ecologists estimate that half of all living birdand mammal species will be gone within 200 or 300 years (Levin and Levin 2002:6). These exceptional losses qualify thepresent as an era ofmass extinction (Levin and Levin 2002:6). As vast tracts of wilderness vanish in the not-so-distant future, the alteration and fragmentation of existing habitats ensures that any future radiation of mammals, forinstance, will not include large forms such as rhinoceroses, apes and big cats....Human activities will likely increase [primate]rates of extinction....Such a wholesale shift in earths biota will impoverish the planet for many millions of years to come

(Levin and Levin 2002:7-8).


12/48

ADI 8 12Malthus Abe

2NC UNIQUENESS A2 DENSITY

POPULATION DENSITY IS IRRELEVANT; CARRYING CAPACITY IS A MUCH MORE ACCURATE

PREDICTOR OF ECOLOGICAL IMPACT BECAUSE IT ASSUMES LOCAL ENVIRONMENTS.

EHRLICH, Bing Professor of Population Studies @ Stanford, ANDEHRLICH, associate director and policy coordinatorof the Center for Conservation Biology @ Stanford, 1990Paul, and Anne, The Population Explosion, http://dieoff.org/page27.htm, p 37-40

Having considered some of the ways that humanity is destroying its inheritance, we can look more closely at the concept of"overpopulation." All too often, overpopulation is thought of simply as crowding: too many people in a given area, too high apopulation density. For instance, the deputy editor in chief of Forbes magazine pointed out recently, in connection with a pleafor more population growth in the United States: "If all the people from China and India lived in the continental U.S.(excluding Alaska), this country would still have a smaller population density than England, Holland, or Belgium." *31 Theappropriate response is "So what?" Density is generally irrelevant to questions of overpopulation. For instance, if brutedensity were the criterion, one would have to conclude that Africa is "underpopulated," because it has only 55 peopleper square mile, while Europe (excluding the USSR) has 261 and Japan 857. *32 A more sophisticated measure wouldtake into consideration the amount of Africa not covered by desert or "impenetrable" forest. *33 This more habitableportion is just a little over half the continent's area, giving an effective population density of 117 per square mile. That's stillonly about a fifth of that in the United Kingdom. Even by 2020, Africa's effective density is projected to grow to only aboutthat of France today (266), and few people would consider France excessively crowded or overpopulated. When people think

of crowded countries, they usually contemplate places like the Netherlands (1,031 per square mile), Taiwan (1,604), or HongKong (14,218). Even those don't necessarily signal overpopulationafter all, the Dutch seem to be thriving, and doesn'tHong Kong have a booming economy and fancy hotels? In short, if density were the standard of overpopulation, few nations(and certainly not Earth itself) would be likely to be considered overpopulated in the near future. The error, we repeat, liesin trying to define overpopulation in terms of density; it has long been recognized that density per se means very little.*34 The key to understanding overpopulation is not population density but the numbers of people in an area relativeto its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities ; that is, to the area's carrying capacity.When is an area overpopulated? When its population can't be maintained without rapidly depleting nonrenewable resources(or converting renewable resources into nonrenewable ones) and without degrading the capacity of the environment tosupport the population. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its currenthuman occupants, that area is overpopulated. *35 By this standard, the entire planet and virtually every nation isalready vastly overpopulated. Africa is overpopulated now because, among other indications, its soils and forests arerapidly being depletedand that implies that its carrying capacity for human beings will be lower in the future than it isnow. The United States is overpopulated because it is depleting its soil and water resources and contributing mightilyto the destruction of global environmental systems. Europe, Japan, the Soviet Union, and other rich nations are

overpopulated because of their massive contributions to the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, among manyother reasons. Almost all the rich nations are overpopulated because they are rapidly drawing down stocks of resourcesaround the world. They don't live solely on the land in their own nations. Like the profligate son of our earlier analogy, theyare spending their capital with no thought for the future.


13/48

ADI 8 13Malthus Abe

2NC UNIQUENESS A2 EMPIRICALLY DENIED

(__) PRIOR FALSE PREDICTIONS DONT DENY OUR DISAD YOU CONFUSE FREQUENCY WITH

PROBABILITY.

POSNER, Former 7TH Circuit Judge and Published expert on shit from Environmental analysis to Anti-Trust Law, 6Richard, Should We Worry about Overpopulation?, http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/10/should_we_worry.html

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


14/48

ADI 8 14Malthus Abe

2NC UNIQUENESS A2 POPULATION FORECASTING FAILS

(__) POPULATION FORECASTING IS EMPIRICALLY SUCCESSFUL.

COHEN, 1995How many people can the earth supportpg. 52

Despite their superficial similarities, the numbers ofmathematics and the numbers ofstatistics(including those of

demography, economics and all the natural and human sciences) are different beats. The numbers of mathematicscome from logical calculations; the numbers either are exact or have known or estimable errors. The numbers ofstatistics come from empirical measurements; these numbers may have unknown errors, or estimates of error that arethemselves vulnerable to error. For example, the 1990 census of the United States was estimated to undercount thepopulation by 2.1 percent (an omission of more than five million people) until computer errors were discovered andstatistical changes were made that lowered the estimated undercount to 1.6 percent (roughly four million).Uncertainty does not render statistical numbers worthless; even with uncertainty, statistical numbers are

indispensable. They are often far more informative than verbal descriptions or intuitive hunches.

(__) LINKS TO THE AFF -- THE AFFIRMATIVE LOGIC MAKES THEIR CASE INDETERMINATE, WE WIN

ON PRESUMPTION.

COHEN, 1995How many people can the earth supportpg. 52

The good news fordemographers is that they are not the only forecasting professionals without a crystal ball. Political,economic, technological and cultural forecasts are also prone to error, not to mention forecasts of epidemics, volcanoesand the weather. Nathan Keytiz, a mathematical demographer at Harvard, observed: Demographers can no more beheld responsible for inaccuracy in forecasting population twenty years ahead than geologists, meteorologists, or

economists who fail to announce earthquakes, cold winters, or depressions twenty years ahead. What we are

responsible for is warning one another and our public what the error of estimates is likely to be. Even that is difficult,because demographic projection techniques omit major factors that influence population change.


15/48

ADI 8 15Malthus Abe

2NC UNIQUENESS A2 SIMON

(__) SIMON IS AN ASS HAT.

(A.) SIMONS ARGUMENT IS PREMISED UPON A LOGICAL FALLACY DISPROVING THE ENTIRETY OF

HIS CRITICISM.

DALY,ecological economist and professor at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland,1991Herman, A review of Julian Simons The Ultimate Resource, Steady State Economics, Island Press, pp282-289, http://dieoff.org/page27.htm

The fallacy concerning the copper is obscured by the strange fact that Simon begins with a correct distinction regardinginfinity of distance and infinity of divisibility of a finite distance, and then as soon as he moves from one-inch lines to copperwith nothing but the word "similarly" to bridge the gap, he forgets the distinction. It would be a wonderful exercise for a classin freshman logic to find the parallel between Simon's argument and Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. Recall thatZeno "proved" that Achilles could never catch up with a tortoise that had a finite head start on him. While Achilles traversesthe distance from his starting point to that of the tortoise, the tortoise advances a certain distance, and while Achillesadvances this distance, the tortoise makes a further advance, and so on, ad infinitum. Thus Achilles will never catch up.

Zeno's paradox confounds an infinity of subdivisions of a distance, which is finite, with an infinity of distance. This isexactly parallel to what Simon has done. He has confused an infinity of possible boundary lines between copper and

noncopper with an infinity of amount of copper. We cannot, he says, make an "appropriate count" of copper because theset of all resources can be subdivided in many ways with many possible boundaries for the subset copper because resourcesare "infinitely" substitutable. Since copper cannot be simply counted like beans in a jar, and since what cannot be

counted is not finite, it "follows" that copper is not finite, orcopper is infinite. Simon has argued from the premise of an"infinite" substitutability among different elements within a (finite) set to the conclusion of the infinity of the set itself. Butno amount of rearrangement of divisions within a finite set can make the set infinite . His demonstration that mankindwill never exhaust its resource base rests on the same logical fallacy as Zeno's demonstration that Achilles will never

exhaust the distance between himself and the tortoise. Simon's argument therefore fails even if we grant his premise ofinfinite substitutability, which gets us rather close to alchemy. Copper is after all an element, and the transmutation ofelements is more difficult than the phrase "infinite substitutability" implies! Indeed, Simon never tells us whether "infinitesubstitutability" means infinite substitutability at declining costs, constant costs, increasing costs, or at infinite costs! Ofcourse Simon could simply assert that the total set of all resources is infinite, but this would be a bald assertion, not aconclusion from an argument based on substitutability, which is what he has attempted.

(B.) BAD DATA.

DALY,ecological economist and professor at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland,1991Herman, A review of Julian Simons The Ultimate Resource, Steady State Economics, Island Press, pp282-289, http://dieoff.org/page27.htm

But what about Simon's empirical evidence against resource finitude? It fares no better than his fallacious attempt at logicalrefutation. He leans heavily on two expert studies: "The Age of Substitutability" by Weinberg and Goeller (Science,February 20,1976), and Scarcity and Growth by Barnett and Morse.*1 His use of these studies is amazingly selective. FromWeinberg and Goeller he quotes optimistic findings of "infinite" substitutability among resources, assuming a future

low-cost, abundant energy source. This buttresses Simon's earlier premise of "infinite" subdivisibility or substitutabilityamong resources. But it does not lend support to his fallacious conclusion that resources are infinite and thereforegrowth forever is possible. More to the point, however, is that Weinberg and Goeller explicitly rule out any suchconclusion by stating in their very first paragraph that their "Age of Substitutability" is a steady state. It assumes

zero growth in population and energy use at the highest level that Weinberg and Goeller are willing to say is

technically feasible. And they express serious reservations about the social and institutional feasibility of maintainingsuch a high consumption steady state. Furthermore, the levels envisioned by Weinberg and Goeller, though cornicopian bygeneral consent, are quite modest by Simon's standards: world population in the Age of Substitutability would be only 2.5

times the present population, and world energy use would be only 12 times present use. This implies a world per-capitaenergy usage of only 70 percent of current U.S. per capita use. The very study that Simon appeals to for empiricalsupport of his unlimited growth position explicitly rejects the notion of unlimited growtha fact that Simon fails tomention.


16/48

ADI 8 16Malthus Abe

**LINKS**


17/48

ADI 8 17Malthus Abe

2NC LINK LINEAR

(__) THE IMPACTS LINEAR EVERY PERSON SAVED, COSTS TEN MORE IN THE CRUNCH.

EHRLICH, Bing Professor of Population Studies @ Stanford, ANDEHRLICH, associate director and policy coordinatorof the Center for Conservation Biology @ Stanford, 1974Paul R. and Anne H., Misconceptions, Proquest New York Times Historical, June 16, pg. 241

Furthermore, there are other pernicious fallacies in the what we as Americans can do about the world population problemgame. Lets start with a fallacy that the authors helped to createthe idea that we might suc-cessfully pressure govern-mentsinto launching effective population control programs. In the first edition of our book The Population Bomb, it wassuggested that the United States try to use its food aid as a lever to get recalcitrant governments moving on population controlprograms. The logic then (as today) was impeccable. If you deluded people into thinking that either the U.S. could (or would)supply food in perpetuity for an number of people, you were doing evil. Sooner or later, population growth would completelyoutstrip the capacity of the United States or any other nation to supply food. For every 1,000 people saved today, perhaps10,000 would die when the crunch came. Simply sending food to hungry nations with population explo-sions isanalogous to a physician prescribing aspirin as the treatment for a patient with operable cancerin deferringsomething unpleasant, disaster entrained. Yes, send the foodbut insist that population control measures be instituted. Butdespite the logic, no on in the U.S. Government paid the slightest heed to that suggestion (or tolerated proposals by Wil-liamand Paul Paddock in their 1968 book, Famine1975!), and the point is now moot, since we have no more sur-plus food.

(__) EACH INDIVIDUAL IS CRITICAL EVERY RESOURCE MATTERS IN THE CRUNCH.BROWN, PhD, 6Paul, NOTES FROM A DYING PLANET, page 141

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


18/48

ADI 8 18Malthus Abe

2NC LINK DISEASE

(__) DISEASE SPREAD CHECKS POPULATION EXPANSION.

HARDIN, PROFESSOR EMERITUS HUMAN ECOLOGY AT UCSB, 1991Garret, From Shortage to Longage: Forty Years in the Population Vineyards,http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_from_shortage_to_longage.html

The potential of exponential growth in the human population is a standing threat of human welfare . Until veryrecently, however, this threat was mitigated by the sporadic eruption ofsuch crowd-diseases as dysentery, cholera andplague which, at their worst, could wipe out a quarter to a half of a population in a year or two. Crowd-diseases were themost important negative feedbacks of the Malthusian demostat.Sanitation and modern medicine have greatly weakened the power of disease as an effective controller of population

size. When external controls are eliminated, humanity must then face the problem of devising alternative controls that areinternal to the species. In the past two centuries much effort has been expended looking for acceptable internalpopulation controls-so far without much success. This daunting problem remains to be solved.
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_from_shortage_to_longage.htmlhttp://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_from_shortage_to_longage.html


19/48

ADI 8 19Malthus 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.

CAIRNS, 4John, Tribute to Garrett Hardin, The Garrett Hardin Society, http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/tributes/tr_cairns_2004mar.html

When advocating living within limits, Hardin felt that the engineering principle of a "safety factor" would reduce the damageof episodic or stochastic events. Climate change occurs naturally, but greenhouse gases and deforestation have probablyaccelerated the rate of change. Hardin's lifeboat ethics-a lifeboat is limited in capacity and every nation has a limited

carrying capacity-serves as a useful metaphor for a crowded world with rapidly dwindling natural resources. Heacknowledged that the exact limit is a matter for argument, but already heard are calls for help from overpopulated countriesand many individuals seeking (and usually getting) admission to less crowded "lifeboats." Hardin listed three possibilities ofhow their calls should be answered (Hardin 1974): (1) take all the needy into the lifeboat and swamp it; (2) if the lifeboat hasunused excess capacity, use it at the risk of eliminating the safety factor (how are the ones chosen who are allowed on thelifeboat and what is said to those who are excluded?); (3) admit no additions to the lifeboat and preserve a small safety factor(Hardin notes that this solution would be abhorrent to people who would feel guilty about their own good luck). Hardin'ssuggested reply to those advocating rescue is simple: Get out and yield your place to others.Hardin (1963) replaced the widely used ecological statement that "everything is connected to everything else" with what theeditors of Fortune called Hardin's Law: "We can never merely do one thing." This short sentence requires that one

search any action or inaction for its unintended effects. Hardin contended that "and then what?" be asked over and overagain to more accurately estimate both intended and unintended consequences of humankind's actions. He was a strongsupporter of and commentator on Kenneth Boulding's dismal and utterly dismal theories of economics. The dismal theorystates that, ifthe only check on the growth of population is starvation and misery , then no matter how favorable theenvironment or how advanced the technology, the population will grow until it is miserable and starves . The utterlydismal theory states that, if the only check on population growth is starvation and misery, then any technologicalimprovement will have the ultimate effect of increasing the sum of human misery since it permits a larger population

to live in precisely the same state of misery and starvation as before the change. Although Boulding first proposed boththese theories in 1956 and Hardin reinforced them in 1968, the dangerous expectation still exists that a technologicalsolution can be found to every problem.Hardin devoted his entire professional career to analyzing these and many other related issues. Nevertheless, he believed thatknowledge alone will not move nations; astonishing and unforeseen events will be required for humanity's education.Persuasive, mounting evidence indicates that humankind now exists on the slope of logarithmic curves unprecedentedin human history. Hardin persistently emphasized that infinite growth cannot occur on a finite planet and continuallyurged humankind to confront the finite limitations of Earth and the concept of optimal population size.
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/tributes/tr_cairns_2004mar.htmlhttp://www.garretthardinsociety.org/tributes/tr_cairns_2004mar.html


20/48

ADI 8 20Malthus Abe

2NC LINK POLLUTION

(__) POLLUTION IS A CRITICAL DEATH CHECK, ACCOUNTS FOR 40% OF GLOBAL DEATHS.

PIMENTAL ET AL, 1998David, Maria Tort, Linda DAnna, Anne Krawic, Joshua Berger, Jessica Rossman, Fridah Mugo, Nancy Doon, Michael Shriberg, Erica Howard, Susan Lee,and Jonathan Talbot. Professor of Entomology at Cornell. Ecology of Increasing Disease Population growth and environmental degradationhttp://dieoff.org/page165.htm

Based on current growth rates, the worlds population will double to 12 billion in the next 50 years, intensifyingpollution and disease problems. The US population alone will double to 540 million during the next 70 years (PRB 1996,USBC 1996). Environmental problems are already particularly severe in urban areas of the world, in which thenumber of people continues to double especially quickly (i.e., every 20-25 years). By the turn of the century, according toprojections, more than one-half of the world's population will live in cities that have more than 1 million people, and by 2025,two-thirds of the world's population will have settled in large urban areas (WRI 1994). Densely crowded urban environments,especially those without adequate sanitation, are of great public health concern because they are sources of disease epidemics(Iseki 1994). For example, dengue fever -- spread by the mosquito Aedes aegypti, which breeds in tin cans, old tires, andother water-holding containers -- is already expanding rapidly in crowded tropical cities (Lederberg et al. 1992). Denguefever has increased dramatically since 1980, with 30-60 million dengue infections now occurring each year (Table 1; Monath1994). Based on the increase in air, water, and soil pollutants worldwide, we estimate that 40% of human deaths eachyear result from exposure to environmental pollutants and malnutrition. These deaths are in addition to the toll taken byinfectious diseases. Automobile use and energy consumption, which are steadily increasing


21/48

ADI 8 21Malthus Abe

2NC LINK A2 AGRICULTURE

(__) AGRICULTURE CANT RESOLVE POPULATION PRESSURES.

(A.) CAUSES DEFORESTATION WHICH CRUSHES GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY.


Most ofthe degraded agricultural land has been replaced by removing forests. Agriculture accounts for 60% to 80% ofdeforestation (Pimentel et al 1997:10). A CIA assessment of long-term demographic trends (which was based on an October2000 conference of experts from academia, business, and the intelligence community), noted that Tropical forests arevanishing at the rate of 250 acres per minute(CIA 2001:77). Further, nearly half of the worlds original forest cover has beenlost in the last 50 years, and each year about 16 million hectares of virgin forest are cut, bulldozed, or burned(CIA2001:77). Since about 60% of the worlds population growth this decade will occur in countries with tropical forests ,the report expects this population pressure to produce accelerating destruction of forests (CIA 2001:76). A combinationof demand for wood for cooking and heating, a need for more crop land, and demand for wood in developed countries ensure that forests will continue to bedestroyed at an alarming rate(CIA 2001:77).

Deforestation is a major threat to biodiversity. It is worth repeating the RAND 2000 projection that current rates of forest clearing woulddestroy one-quarter of all species on Earth within the next 50 years. Tropical rainforests are a particularly significant loss, because they contain anywherefrom half to 90% of all terrestrial species (UNPD2001a:21). Species are also being lost because of pollution, pesticide use, urbanization, and other humanactivities: Environmental pressure from the human population is the prime destructive force on earth and is the primary cause of reduced biodiversity(Pimentel et al 1999:30).

(B.) RELIES ON FOSSIL FUELS WHICH ARE UNSUSTAINABLE.


In developed countries, intensive farming techniques require massive amounts of fossil energy for fertilizers, pesticides,irrigation, and machinery. In developing countries, fossil energy is used primarily for fertilizers and irrigation (Pimentelet al 1997:11). In 1991, the US Dept. of Energy projected at (then) current pumping rates the US would exhaust its oilreserves in 15-20 years (Pimentel and Giampietro 1994:3; Pimentel et al 1997:11). The world oil supply has been projectedto last about 50 years at (1994) current pumping rates (Pimintel et al 1999:7). Oil production is expected by someexperts to peak about 2004,21 unless new reserves are discovered (Pimentel et al 1999:27). This means prices will rise,with serious implications for developing countries which rely heavily on fossil energy for fertilizer and irrigation

(Pimentel et al 1997:12).

(C.) NOT ENOUGH WATERKATES, Professor of Philosophy @ Ithaca College, 4Carol A., REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION, Environmental Values 13:1 February, http://www.ithaca.edu/hs/philrel/replib.pdf

Economists have proposed agricultural intensification, primarily through more irrigation and fertilization, to increasecrop yields. However, there are ecological limits on both methods.Surface water and groundwater, refilled by rainfall, each provide half of freshwater supply in the world. Groundwaterresources are renewed very slowly, usually at about 1% per year (Pimentel et al 1994:354). Even though the total amountof water made available by the hydrologic cycle is enough to provide the current population with adequate fresh watermostof this total water is concentrated in specific regions....Water demand [in 1993] already far exceeds supplies in nearly 80nations....(Pimentel et al 1999:24). About 40% of people in the world live in regions that compete for fresh water supplies(Pimentel and Giampietro 1994:2). In the US, groundwater is being depleted at an unsustainable 25% above replacementlevel (Pimentel et al 1994:354; Pimentel et al 1999:25). The 2001 CIA report estimates that by 2025, 48 countriescontaining 3 billion people, will face freshwater shortages , and 20 countries ofthe Near East and North Africa have the

worst prospects. In those areas, water supplies could run out by 2100 if per capita consumption and excessive use inagriculture are not controlled....(CIA 2001:77).

Currently, about 87% of the worlds fresh water is consumed orused up by agriculture and, thus, is not recoverable(Pimentel et al 1994:353-4; Pimentel et al 1997:10). Water supplies are also threatened by pollution from pesticides,fertilizers and sediments, toxic chemicals and sewage (Pimentel et al 1994:354-5). Ocean water desalinization is not aviable source of fresh water because the process is energy intensive and economically impractical (Pimentel et al1999:25). Some technologists, like Julian Simon (1996), believe that human population growth will not cause anyshortage of water and other resources because we have the technologies to provide for the needs of an unlimitedpopulation. It would indeed be a wonderful achievement to see these technologists produce crops withoutwater!(Pimentel et al 1999:32). The 2001 CIA report concludes: water availability is likely to become one of the mostpressing and contentious resource issues of this century....This situation will only be exacerbated by population growth(CIA 2001:77).


22/48

ADI 8 22Malthus Abe

2NC LINK A2 AQUACULTURE

(__) AQUACULTURE IS UNSUSTAINABLE WERE ON THE BRINK OF COMPLETE FISHERY COLLAPSE.


The FAO also acknowledges that environmental factors are expected to limit the supply of fish, because by 2000 three-

quarters of ocean fish stocks were overfished, depleted or exploited up to their maximum sustainable yield(FAO2002). However, they expect aquaculture to continue to grow rapidly (FAO 2002). Aquaculture is also being promoted bythe Malaysia-based WorldFish Center and the International Food Policy Research Institute, which issued a report ondeclining fish yields in preparation for a conference (Fish for All Summit) in November, 2002 (World Fish Center 2002).20 Ecologists, however, have questioned the sustainability of aquaculture (Rees 2002:29-31). Although bland accounts ofdeclining fish yields might suggest a limited period of conservation can restore fish stocks, a major study directed by Dr.Daniel Pauly ofthe University ofBritish Columbia Fisheries Center (the Sea Around Us project), concluded that theNorth Atlantic ocean is heading towards a fisheries collapse- in effect, losing its ability to sustain further catches.Over the past 50 years catches of cod, tuna, haddock, flake and flounder have fallen by more than half (Pauly 2002). Theresearch reports are available at http://www.saup.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/reports.
http://www.saup.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/reportshttp://www.saup.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/reports


23/48

ADI 8 23Malthus Abe

2NC LINK A2 FREE MARKET (S)

(__) MARKET ECONOMIES AND COMPLEX SYSTEMS CREATE DISCONTINUITIES THAT RISK

EXTINCTION.

DOBKOWSKI, Prof Relig. Studies @ Hobart & William Smith AND WALLIMANN, Prof Sociology, Economics & SocialPolicy @ U. of Applied Sciences, Finland, 2Michael & Isidore, ed, On The Edge of Scarcity, Syracuse Univ. Press , p. xxvii-xxviii

It seems evident now that there will he a temporal conjunction offour sizable bottlenecks: population, land, energy, andenvironmental carrying capacity. All of them are so intricately related that they form a system complexity whose verybalance has never been so delicate vet so important to our survival. Therefore, we must also distinguish betweenbottlenecks that present continuous hut stable challenges and the ones that represent discontinuous and unstable challenges.Population growth, for example, is a challenge with great continuity. However, as we approach the question of energy andland, particularly if environmental pressures are included, we can increasingly expect challenges characterized by

discontinuity. Even though energy resources may not be depleted, the supply of energy could for technological orpolitical or economic reasons become highly discontinuous. Agricultural land may increasingly go out of commission in adiscontinuous way, be it because of events such as droughts, floods, erosion, or drastic overuse. As the system reaches anever greater complexity, and as survival hinges ever more and with small margins on this complexity, any jolt to the system isbound to make survival more immediately a matter of life and death.Furthermore, the jolts emitted by the economic system are also of importance, for production factors such as

population, land, energy, as well as many environmental constraints are mediated and coordinated by mar kets.Markets, however, are also known to have a great deal ofdiscontinu ity owing to the anonymous number of theirparticipants and the unforeseeable outcome produced by their myriad market interactions . Thus, the capitalistmarket, the very technique chosen to manage survival, is itself a threat to survival, as is exemplified by speculation,recessions, and depressions, booms and busts. Market dynamics themselves upset the del icate balance among land,energy, population, and the environment, and thereby directly determine survival and death rates.Additionally, techniques to ensure continuity in a world of random but significant disturbances may break down .Already insurance companies suspect that a number of weather-related events may have ceased to be sufficientlv random orinsignificant or both to be insured. The private market insurance system may soon prove unable to ensure against certainecosystem risks. The instability would thereby increase, leaving politics as the last potential guarantor of continuity andstability, as is already the case with atomic power plants, where no private insurer is willing to cover the entire risk, nor could

such risk be covered. However, how many big risks, should the event and the scarcity associated with them occur, canthe political sys tem handle before solidarity breaks down, instability increases, conflicts grow, and massive death

results?

(__) EVEN ASSUMING EVERY COUNTRY ADOPTED FREE MARKET POLICIES AND THOSE POLICIES

SUCCEEDED IN PROMOTING ECONOMIC GROWTH WE WOULD STILL NEED FIVE ADDITIONAL

EARTHS TO MAINTAIN RESOURCE DEMANDS.


The second objection is that even if every nation on the planet rapidly adopted efficient free market and free tradepolicies, andevenassuming such policies worked to accelerate global economic growth, the result, given current and,certainly, projected population levels, would be an impossibly large ecological deficit. Humanitys ecological footprint hasbeen estimated to exceed long-term global carrying capacity as much as 40% (Rees 2002:40).16 Humanity currentlyappropriates an unsustainable 25-35% of coastal shelf primary production (Rees 1996:198), and over 50% of the Sunsenergy captured by the entire plant biomass on Earth each year ( Pimentel et al 1999:30). William Rees estimated that if the

world population of 5.8 billion (in 1996) lived at unsustainable North American consumption levels, two additional planetEarths would be required to accommodate the ecological load. With a population of 10 or 11 billion, 5 additional Earthswould be needed simply to maintain the present rate of ecological decline (Rees 1996:210).


24/48

ADI 8 24Malthus Abe

2NC LINK A2 TECH (1/2)

(__) TECH WILL STOP ADVANCING WERE ON THE BRINK OF A NEW DARK AGE.

NEW SCIENTIST 7-2-5 (www.newscientist.com)But according to a new analysis, this view couldnt be more wrong: far from being in technological nirvana, we are fastapproaching a new dark age. That, at least, is the conclusion of Jonathan Huebner, a physicist working at the PentagonsNaval Air Warfare Center in China Lake, California. He says the rate of technological innovation reached a peak a century

ago and has been declining ever since. And like the lookout on the Titanic who spotted the fateful iceberg, Huebner sees theend if innovation looming dead ahead. His study will be published in Technological Forecasting and Social Change.Its an unfashionable view. Most futurologists say technology is developing at exponential rates. Moores law, for example,foresaw chimp densities (for which read speed and memory capacity) doubling every 18 months. And the chip makers havelived up to its predictions. Building on this, the less well-known Kurzweils law says that these faster, smarter chips areleading to even faster growth in the power of computers. Developments in genome sequencing and nanoscale machinery areracing ahead too, and internet connectivity and telecommunications bandwidth are growing even faster than computer power,catalyzing still further waves of innovation.But Huebner is confident of his facts. He has long been struck by the fact that promised advances were not appearingas quickly as predicted. I wondered if there was a reason for this, he says. Perhaps there is a limit to what technologycan achieve.In an effort to find out, he plotted major innovations and scientific advances over time compared to world population,using the 7200 key innovations listed in a recently published book, The History of Science and Technology (Houghton

Mifflin, 2004). The results surprised him.Rather than growing exponentially, or even keeping pace with population growth, they peaked in 1873 and have been

declining ever since (see Graphs). Next, he examined the number of patents granted in the US from 1790 to the present.When he plotted the number of US patents granted per decade divided by the countrys population, he found the graphpeaked in 1915.The period between 1873 and 1915 was certainly an innovative one. For instance, it included the major patent-producingyears of Americas greatest inventor, Thomas Edison (1847-1931). Edison patented more than 1000 inventions, including theincandescent bulb, electricity generation and distribution grids, movie cameras and the phonograph.Medieval futureHuebner draws some stark lessons from his analysis. The global rate of innovation today, which is running at sevenimportant technological developments per billion people per year, matches the rate in 1600. Despite far higherstandards of education and massive R&D funding it is more difficult now for people to develop new technology ,Huebner says

Extrapolating Huebners global innovation curvejust two decades into the future, the innovation rate plummets tomedieval levels. We are approaching the dark ages point, when the rate of innovation is the same as it was during theDark Ages, Huebner says. Well reach that in 2024.But todays much larger population means that the number of innovations per year will still be far higher than in medievaltimes. Im certainly not predicting that the dark ages will reoccur in 2024, if at all, he says. Nevertheless, the point at whichan extrapolation of his global innovation curve hits zero suggests we have already made 85 per cent of the technologiesthat are economically feasible.

(__) AT WORST, WE NEED A 50% REDUCTION IN ECOSYSTEM CONSUMPTION NO COMING TECH

ACHIEVES NEAR THAT.


There are at least two major ecological objections to this growth prescription. First, ecologists have vigorously contested theclaim that technology can provide substitutes for all scarce, and critical, resources, and that food production inparticular can keep pace with population growth without unacceptable environmental damage. Of course its alwayspossible that some new technologies will emerge to mediate the environmental impact of population and consumption.15However, ecologists have estimated that an absolute reduction of up to 50% in the human load currently imposed onecosystems would be required for ecological sustainability, and that high income countries would have to reduce their

ecosystem demands by 80% or more to create ecological space for growth in developing countries (Rees 2002:41).Technology to achieve this goal does not appear to be on the horizon. Therefore, prudence would suggest a direct focuson eco-compatible population and consumption levels. If the economic optimists turn out to be right, efforts to reducepopulation and consumption will have made the planet healthier and less crowded. But if they are wrong, the planet, and ourown species among others, will pay an unacceptable price for growth
http://www.newscientist.com/http://www.newscientist.com/


25/48

ADI 8 25Malthus Abe

2NC LINK A2 TECH (2/2)

(__) TECHNOLOGY WILL INEVITABLY FAIL TO PRODUCE ONLY A POSSIBILITY TO DELAY THE

CRUNCH.

CATTON, Professor Emeritus at Washington State University, 1998William R, Negative Population Growth,http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/03/malthus-more-relevant-than-ever.html

Malthus was not wrong in the ways commonly supposed. From his 18th century perspective he simply had no basis forseeing the human ability to "overshoot" carrying capacity. It was inconceivable to Malthus that human societies could, bytaking advantage of favorable conditions (new technology, abundant fossil fuels), temporarily increase human numbers andappetites above the long-term capacity of environments to provide needed resources and services. But it is inexcusable todaynot to recognize the way populations can sometimes overshoot sustainable carrying capacity and what happens to

them after they have done it.Human economic growth and technology have only created the appearance that Malthus was wrong (in the way weused to learn in school). What our technological advances have actually done was to allow human loads to growprecariously beyond the earth's long-term carrying capacity by drawing down the planet's stocks of key resources

accumulated over four billion years of evolution.

(__) ERR NEGATIVE THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CONCLUDES AGAINST THE EFFECTIVENESS OF

TECHNOLOGY TO PREVENT A POPULATION CRUNCH.

THE INTERACADEMY PANEL ON INTERNATIONAL ISSUES, 5Joint Statement by 58 of The Worlds Scientific Academies,http://www.interacademies.net/?id=3547

Representatives of national academies of science from throughout the world met in New Delhi, India, from October 24-27, 1993, in a "Science Summit" on World Population. The conference grew out of two earlier meetings, one of the RoyalSociety of London and the United States National Academy of Sciences, and the other and international conference organizedby the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Statements published byboth groups* expressed a sense ofurgent concernabout the expansion of the world's population and concluded that if current predictions of population growth proveaccurate and patterns of human activity of the planet remain unchanged, science and technology may not be able toprevent irreversible degradation of the natural environment and continued poverty for much of the world.
http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/03/malthus-more-relevant-than-ever.htmlhttp://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/03/malthus-more-relevant-than-ever.htmlhttp://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/03/malthus-more-relevant-than-ever.htmlhttp://www.interacademies.net/?id=3547http://www.interacademies.net/?id=3547http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/03/malthus-more-relevant-than-ever.htmlhttp://www.interacademies.net/?id=3547


26/48

ADI 8 26Malthus Abe

2NC LINK A2 SPACE

(__) DOESNT SOLVE CANT GET PEOPLE OFF THE PLANET FAST ENOUGH TO RESOLVE POPULATION

PRESSURES.

HARDIN, 1993GARRETT,LIVING WITHIN LIMITS, Oxford University Press

For interstellar migration to prevent an increase of population on earth, people would have to be exported as fast asthe world's population is increasing. (Worse: if we agree that the world is already overpopulated, people would have

to be shipped off faster than this. But let us take a sunny view of things and ignore the possibility that the earth is already overpopulated.)

(__) WE STILL WIN A SIZABLE IMPACT THE DEATH OF OUR HOME WORLD WOULD BE KIND OF A

DRAG EVEN IF WE MAKE IT TO SPACE, BILLIONS WOULD STILL DIE ON EARTH SURVIVAL WOULD

BE PRETTY UNBEARABLE AFTER ALL THAT ANYWAY.

(__) SPACE IS IMPOSSIBLE NO INHABITABLE PLANETS, IF THERE ARE THEYRE TO FAR AWAY AND

ZERO POPULATION GROWTH IS A PREREQUISITE TO SPACE TRAVEL.

DALEIDEN, 1999The American Dream: Can it survive the 21 st Century? , Prometheus Books, New York. p64-98,http://www.mnforsustain.org/pop_issues_policies_2_2_daleiden_j.htm#Space%20Colonization

One final note: some wild - eyed optimists believe that after filling the earth to capacity we will just move to otherplanets, sort of like the Europeans who moved to the new world of the Americas. We already know, however, that there areno inhabitable planets in our own solar system. (Of course we could build some ecopod to house a few dozen or perhapseven a few hundred people on a barren and inhospitable moon or perhaps Mars, but only at a huge cost.) To find a livableplanet, we need to travel to other solar systems, and there is the rub.As Garrett Hardin explains, the nearest star to the earth is Alpha Centauri which is four light years away.* Traveling atthe present rate of space speeds about twenty-five thousandmph it would take 114,000 years to get to AlphaCentauri. Even assuming we could boost the speed to twenty-two million mph which may or may not be theoreticallypossible it would take 125 years for the trip, i.e., four to five generations. And at the present birth rate, to keep thepopulation of the earth from increasing further we would have to send off a quarter million people a day! Considering

that it costs about $1 billion to build a submarine to house 140 sailors for a year, the cost of just one vehicle to house

and support a quarter million people for 125 years is almost unimaginable. Even with economies of scale, one trilliondollars per spaceship would seem a bargain. And we would need to build one a day!89

* There is no evidence that Alpha Centauri has any planets in fact the odds are against it. The closest star withplanets appears to be over eight light years away, and the likelihood that those planets are inhabitable is extremely small.Moreover, what if we discover there is already intelligent life on another planet? Does that give us the right to invade andconquer the indigenous people (assuming we could) so that we can export our surplus population? It never occurs to sciencefiction writers that from the perspective of any other planet with an indigenous population, we would be the space aliens.Perhaps only Native Americans can appreciate this irony.

Finally, during those five generations of space travel, the voyagers would have to limit their population to replacement

levels only (i.e., births - deaths = zero). But if we can get to zero population growth on the space vehicle, why not do ithere on earth in the first place, saving all that absurd effort? It should be obvious to all but the most obtuse that thenotion of populating distant solar systems to solve the earth's population problem is preposterous. Nevertheless, some peoplewill clutch at any solution, no matter how absurd, to avoid taking the necessary actions dictated by circumstances.


27/48

ADI 8 27Malthus Abe

2NC LINK A2 NUCLEAR WAR D/T

(__) NUCLEAR WAR IMPACT ISNT A DOUBLE TURN

(A.) NUCLEAR WAR DECREASES CARRYING CAPACITY DOESNT PRESERVE FUTURE GENERATIONS.

NISSANI, Professor at Wayne State, 1992Moti, Lives in the Balance: The Cold War and American Politics 1945-1991, http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/pagepub/CH2.html

There will be fewer people and less industrial and commercial activity long after the war , hence some seriousenvironmental threats will be ameliorated. By killing billions and destroying industrial infrastructures, nuclear warmight, for instance, halt or slow down the suspected trend of global warming. On balance, however, the war's overall

environmental impact will almost certainly be on the negative side.Radioactive fallout will contaminate soils and waters. We shall probably learn to adjust to these new conditions, perhapsby shunning certain regions or by carrying radioactivity meters everywhere we go the way our ancestors carried spears. Still,this will lower the quality of human life.Nuclear explosions might create immense quantities of dust and smoke. The dust and smoke might blanket, darken,

and cool the entire planet. Although the extent of the damage is unclear,24it would be far more severe during the growingseason-late spring and summer in the northern latitudes. One Cassandran and controversial prediction sounds a bit likethe eerie twilight described in H. G. Wells' The Time Machine. This "nuclear winter" projection forecasts freezingsummertime temperatures,25 temporary climatic changes (e.g., violent storms, dramatic reductions in rainfall), lowerefficiencies of plant photosynthesis, disruption of ecosystems and farms, loss of many species, and the death of millions

of people from starvation and cold. However, even these pessimists expect a return to normal climatic conditions within afew years.26a,27

(B.) NUCLEAR WAR CAUSES THE EARTH TO EXPLODE TOTAL EXTINCTION.

CHALKO, MSc, PhD, Head of Geophysics Research, Scientific E Research P/L 3Dr. Tom J., MSc., Ph.D., Can a Neutron Bomb Accelerate Global Volcanic Activity? http://sci-e-research.com/neutron_bomb.html

The TRUE danger of modern nuclear weaponry is that their neutron radiation is capable to induce global overheating

of the planetary interior, global volcanic activity and, in extreme circumstances, may even cause the entire planet toexplode.
http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/pagepub/CH2.htmlhttp://sci-e-research.com/neutron_bomb.htmlhttp://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/pagepub/CH2.htmlhttp://sci-e-research.com/neutron_bomb.html


28/48

ADI 8 28Malthus Abe

**IMPACTS**


29/48

ADI 8 29Malthus Abe

2NC IMPACT TURNS CASE (BIODIVERSITY)

(__) OVERPOPULATION CRUSHES BIODIVERSITY.

CATTON, Professor Emeritus at Washington State University, 1998William R, Negative Population Growth,http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/03/malthus-more-relevant-than-ever.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. According to a recent survey, a majority of American biologists regard the mass extinction ofplant and animal species now resulting from human domination of the earth as a grave threat to humans in the nextcentury (Warrick, 1998). We live in a world losing biodiversity at an unprecedented rate (Koopowitz and Kaye, 1983;Wilson, 1992:215 ff; Tuxill, 1998). It is high time to see that this consequence was implicit in the 1798 essay by Malthus .

(__) BIODIVERSITY LOSS CAUSES HUMAN EXTINCTION.


Biodiversity loss may pose the greatest direct threat to human survival, ifit destabilizes the biosphere and interfereswith recycling of such vital elements as carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus (Pimentel and Giampietro 1994:2). The endresult of the accelerating extinction of plant and animal species could be wholesale ecosystem collapse (Brown2000:8). Biodiversity is also essential to a productive and sustainable agriculture, and humans have no technology tosubstitute for most of the services provided by diverse species (wild biota) (Pimentel et al 1994:355; Pimentel et al

1997:13). Thus, there are ecological limits on the possibility of converting natural habitats into agricultural fields, and someexperts have suggested protecting environmental quality by preserving about one-third of the terrestrial ecosystem as naturalvegetation (Pimentel and Giampietro 1994:2; Pimentel et al 1994:355).
http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/03/malthus-more-relevant-than-ever.htmlhttp://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/03/malthus-more-relevant-than-ever.htmlhttp://billtotten.blogspot.com/2005/03/malthus-more-relevant-than-ever.html


30/48

ADI 8 30Malthus Abe

2NC IMPACT TURNS CASE (GENOCIDE)

(__) OVERPOPULATION IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF GENOCIDE RWANDA PROVES.

DIAMOND, American evolutionary biologist and physiologist, 5Jared, Malthus in Africa: Rwandas Genocide, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, http://www.ditext.com/diamond/10.html

Instead, I conclude that population pressure was one of the important factors behind the Rwandan genocide, that

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


31/48

ADI 8 31Malthus Abe

2NC IMPACT TURNS CASE (POVERTY)

(__) OVERPOPULATION MAKES THE ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IMPOSSIBLE.

BROWN, president of the Earth Policy Institute, 6Lester, Plan B 2.0, http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PB2/PB2preface.htm

In the original Plan B, we had a budget for eradicating poverty, but if the economys environmental support systems are

collapsing, poverty eradication will not be possible. If croplands are eroding and harvests are shrinking, if water tablesare falling and wells are going dry, if rangelands are turning to desert and livestock are dying, iffisheries are collapsing, ifforests are shrinking, and if rising temperatures are scorching crops, a poverty eradication programno matter howcarefully crafted and well implementedwill not succeed.


32/48

ADI 8 32Malthus Abe

2NC IMPACT TURNS CASE (TERRORISM)

(__) ROOT CAUSE OF TERRORISM IS OVERPOPULATION PRESIDENTIAL STUDY CONCLUDES.

CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON POPULATION AND SECURITY, 1The Public Report of the Vice President's Task Force on Combatting Terrorism, http://www.population-security.org/issue_a.htm

Arguably the most authoritative work on terrorism was the February 1986 Report of the Vice President's Task Force on

Combatting Terrorism, chaired by Vice President George Bush, Sr. Yet no mention of the study has appeared in the presssince September 11, 2001. On that day, the George Bush Library archivist, Melissa Walker, pulled it from her files inanticipation of interest by the media. But not until October 29th did she receive her first request. It was from CRPS. Thisreport concludes that the root cause of terrorism is overpopulation. This determination the Vatican no doubt finds highlyoffensive since all of the solutions to the population problem undermine papal authority. This report appears in its entirety.


33/48

ADI 8 33Malthus Abe

2NC IMPACT TURNS CASE (WAR)

(__) STUDIES CONCLUDE DECREASING POPULATION HAS A LINEAR CORRELATION WITH A

DECREASED RISK OF ETHNIC WAR AND TERRORISM.

CINCOTTA, ENGELMAN, AND, ANASTASION, Senior Research Associates for Population Action International, 3Richard, Robert and Daniele, The Security Demographic - Population and Civil Conflict After the Cold War. Population Action International.http://www.populationaction.org/Publications/Fact_Sheets/FS23/Summary.shtml

Do the dynamics of human population rates of growth, age structure, distribution and more influence when and wherewarfare will next break out?The findings of this report suggest that the risks of civil conflict (deadly violence betweengovernments and non-state insurgents, or between state factions within territorial boundaries)that are generated bydemographic factors may be much more significant than generally recognized, and worthy of more serious considerationby national security policymakers and researchers. Its conclusions drawn from a review of literature and analyses ofdata from 180 countries, about half of which experienced civil conflict at some time from 1970 through 2000 argue that:During the last three decadesof the 20th century, demographic transition a population's shift from high to low ratesof birth and death was associated with continuous declines in the vulnerability of countries to civil conflicts (ethnic

wars, antigovernment insurgencies and terrorismresulting in multiple deaths). This relationship suggests that a range ofpolicies and programs that promote demographic transitionby encouraging small, healthy and better educated familiesand longer lives willimprove the prospects for political stabilityin developing countriesand enhance global securityinthe future.


34/48

ADI 8 34Malthus Abe

2NC IMPACT TURNS CASE (WARMING)

(__) OVERPOPULATION CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING GREENHOUSE GASES ARE A PRODUCT OF

HUMAN CONSUMPTION.

BASNSAL, CNSNEWS STAFF WRITER, 7Monisha, Group Calls for Population Control to Stop Global Warming,http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200704/NAT20070418a.html

"Human population growth is the paramount environmental issue," Ric Oberlink, a spokesman for Californians forPopulation Stabilization, told Cybercast News Service. "Global warming is a very serious problem, but it is a subset of theoverpopulation problem," he said. Oberlink argued that an increase in the emission of"greenhouse gases" -- carbondioxide and other gases blamed for climate change -- is a result of human activity, "like most environmental problems."Although one part of the equation is what people do, he said, the other part is how many there are. "If we had half asmany people, we wouldn't have much of a climatic warming problem ," argued Oberlink.

(__) GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES THE EARTH TO EXPLODE.

CHALKO, MSc, PhD, 1Tom J., No second chance? Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?, NU Journal of Discovery, Vol 3, May, http://nujournal.net/core.pdf

Consequences of global warming are far more serious than previously imagined. The REAL danger for our entirecivilization comes not from slow climate changes, but from overheating of the planetary interior.

Life on Earth is possible only because of the efficient cooling of the planetary interior - a process that is limitedprimarily by the atmosphere. This cooling is responsible for a thermal balance between the heat from the core reactor ,the heat from the Sun and the radiation of heat into space, so that the average temperature on Earths surface is about 13degrees Celsius.This article examines the possibility ofoverheating and the meltdown of the solid planetary core due to theatmospheric pollution trapping progressively more solar heat (the so-called greenhouse effect) and reducing the coolingrate of the planetary interior.The most serious consequence of such a meltdown could be centrifugal segregation of unstable isotopes in themolten part of the spinning planetary core. Such segregation can enrich the nuclear fuel in the core to the point ofcreating conditions for a chain reaction and a gigantic atomic explosion. Will Earth become another asteroid belt inthe Solar system?


35/48

ADI 8 35Malthus Abe

2NC IMPACT A2 HEGEMONY

(__) LARGE POPULATIONS ARENT KEY TO WAR FIGHTING TECH AND CONSCRIPTION SOLVE.

BINKIN, senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies program at the Brookings Institution, 1990Manning the American Military: Demographics and National Security, NPG Forum Series, http://www.npg.org/forum_series/manning_military.htm

Such concerns, however, can be readily discounted. First, even before recent events in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,

a replay of World War II between NATO and the Warsaw Pact that is, a protracted conventional conflict involving millions oftroops was considered an extremely long shot. The betting among serious analysts was that any conventional militaryconfrontation between the two sides would be measured in terms of days or weeks, rather than months or years, endingearly either in negotiations or in escalation to nuclear conflict. In any case, few envisaged any situation that wouldrequire tens of millions of Americans to serve in the armed forces.But even if, against all odds, the nation was to get involved in a protracted war of attrition that would require asubstantial expansion in the size of the armed forces, full mobilization would be ordered, conscription would bereinstituted and some 18 million American men in the 18 through 26 year cohorts would provide the initial pool of

draftees, followed as necessary by men in the older age groups and perhaps expanded opportunities for American women toserve or, indeed, be conscripted into military services. In the extreme, a U.S. military force equal to that of the second WorldWar (11 million) would now constitute less than 5 percent of the total p

malthus (adi)

Documents