Growth Bad Index

Growth Causes War...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2

POVERTY.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9
CHINA MOD..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10
TERRORISM MOD........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11
SYSTEMIC IMPACT......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12
BIODIVERSITY MOD...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13
WATER WAR MOD........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................14
CHD MOD......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................15
NANOTECH MOD.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................16
NANO EXTENSIONS....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................17
DESTROYS ENVIRONMENT......................................................................................................................................................................................................................18
OVERPOPULATION......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19

Growth Causes War

GROWTH CAUSES RESOURCE WARS, PROVIDES MOTIVATION FOR WAR
Trainer, 04 (The Simpler Way, WORKING FOR TRANSITION FROM CONSUMER SOCIETY TO A SIMPLER, MORE
COOPERATIVE, JUST AND ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. accessed 2004)
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/13-Peace-Conflict.html

Conflicts of many types are largely due to the scramble for the world's scarce resources and markets. As the numbers of
people increase and resources dwindle and everyone strives for more economic growth and higher living standards,
conflicts deriving from this competition must become more common and more intense .
Throughout history conflict and war have been largely due to some groups or states trying to take more than their fair
share of resources.
WAR IS INEVITABLE AS LONG AS WE ARE COMMITTED TO GROWTH
Trainer, 04 (The Simpler Way, WORKING FOR TRANSITION FROM CONSUMER SOCIETY TO A SIMPLER, MORE
COOPERATIVE, JUST AND ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. accessed 2004) http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/10-Our-Empire.html
The longer view; Imperialism in history.
Let's step back from the current era and reflect briefly on the fact that throughout history humans have shown such a strong tendency

to
build and exploit empires. In the last 500 years the Portuguese were replaced by the Spanish, then the Dutch were dominant world power. Then the British ran
the world for a long time, fighting 72 colonial wars to gain control of their vast empire. World Wars I and II can be seen as attempts by the
challenger Germany to push through to world domination. In the process Europe exhausted itself enabling the Americans to emerge as the most
powerful nation and to organise the world economy in the way that suited it for the last 50 years. So throughout history some power can usually be
seen to have kicked and clawed its way to the top of the heap and then to have ran things in ways that deliver most of the
available wealth to itself. (Yet with the coming of globalisation the power and the wealth is becoming located more within a small international corporate class
than within any one nation.) The current imperial system is very strong and stable. It obviously suits the powerful ruling class which is in control of the media and
agencies like the World Bank and thus has great capacity to determine how things will be done. It more or less controls governments, through the campaign
contributions system whereby corporations give large sums to candidates and are then repaid, and through its capacity to threaten governments with the withdrawal of
investments. Especially significant is the general acceptance of conventional economic theory which takes as its top priority maximising business turnover and profits.
It is also in the interests of the tiny Third World rich classes to comply with the imperial system which ensures that their people fail to get a fair share of their country's
resources. And it is also very much in the interests of ordinary people in rich countries to ignore the fact that their living standards owe much to the resources and labour
imported from poor countries. We cannot expect to achieve a just world order, (nor a peaceful or ecologically sustainable one)

until we grow out of this greedy and infantile imperial mentality. If nations continue to insist on clawing their way over
each other to ever greater wealth, power and prestige, then we will continue to have an infallible recipe for endless and
accelerating domination, conflict and imperialism. The USA just happens to be the current top dog. It is no more contemptible than the rest; if New
Zealand or Ireland were able to dominate the world system it would surely do so, given that most people in any country subscribe to the false ideas that drive
imperialism especially belief in endlessly rising 'living standards' and GNP. We cannot expect to see an end to imperialism and the domination

of nations, nor to international conflict, until we outgrow our mindless obsession with affluence, growth and power

and

focus on the need to live according to The Simpler Way.

GLOBAL WAR MORE LIKELY IN PERIODS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH CAUSES

COUNTERHEGEMONIC WARS, THIS MAKES YOUR MEAD WAR MORE LIKELY
Chase-Dunn, 99 (The Next War: World-System Cycles and Trends, The Future of Global Conflict) http://www.lclark.edu/~podobnik/war.html
While the onset of a period of hegemonic rivalry is in itself disturbing, the picture becomes even grimmer when the
influence of long- term economic cycles are taken into account. As an extensive body of research documents (see especially
Van Duijn 1983), the 50 to 60 year business cycle known as the Kondratieff wave (K-wave) has been in synchronous operation on
an international scale for at least the last two centuries. Utilizing data gathered by Levy (1983) on war severity, Goldstein (1988) demonstrates that there is a
corresponding 50 to 60 year cycle in the number of battle deaths per year for the period 1495-1975. Beyond merely showing that the K-wave and the war cycle are
linked in a systematic fashion, Goldstein's research suggests that severe core wars are much more likely to occur late in the upswing phase

of the K-wave. This finding is interpreted as showing that, while states always desire to go to war, they can afford to do so only when
economic growth is providing them with sufficient resources. Modelski and Thompson (forthcoming) present a more complex interpretation of
the systemic relationship between economic and war cycles, but it closely resembles Goldstein's hypothesis. In their analysis, a first economic upswing
generates the economic resources required by an ascending core state to make a bid for hegemony; a second period of
economic growth follows a period of global war and the establishment of a new period of hegemony. Here, again, specific
economic upswings are associated with an increased likelihood of the outbreak of core war .

GROWTH CAUSES WAR

ECONOMIC GROWTH CAUSES FULL SCALE NUCLEAR WAR
Trainer, 85 (Ted, Prof. South Wales, Abandon Affluence)
Of all the problems we are bringing upon ourselves by our commitment to affluence and growth none is more disturbing
than the possibility that civilization could be virtually destroyed in minutes by nuclear war . This chapter seeks to make clear that the
threat of conflict between nations from local skirmishes carried out by diplomatic or economic means up to and including full-scale nuclear war between
superpowers, can only increase rapidly if we remain committed to the endless pursuit of affluence and economic growth .
ECONOMIC UPSWING WILL CAUSE HEGEMONIC WARS AND EXTINCTION
Chase-Dunn, 99 (Prof. PS, The Next War: World-System Cycles and Trends, The Future of Global Conflict) http://www.lclark.edu/~podobnik/war.html
Late in the K-wave upswing (i.e. in the 2020s) the world-system schema predicts a window of vulnerability to another round of
world war. This is when world wars have occurred in the past. We expect that intensified rivalry and competition for raw
materials and markets will coincide with a multipolar distribution of military power among core states. The worldsystem
model does not predict who the next hegemon will be. Rather it designates that there will be structural forces in motion that will favor the
construction of a new hierarchy. Historical particularities and the unique features of the era will shape the outcome and select the winners and losers. If it were
possible for the current system to survive the holocaust of another war among core states, the outcome of the war would
be the main arbiter of hegemonic succession. While the hegemonic sequence has been a messy method of selecting global "leadership" in the past, the
settlement of hegemonic rivalry by force in the future will be a disaster that our species may not survive. It is our concern about
this possible disaster that motivates our efforts to understand how the hegemonic sequence has occurred in the past and the factors affecting hegemonic rivalry in the
next decades. We will also discuss the implications of our analysis for political action that is consistent with the "grand strategy" of the human species.

OUR CONSUMPTION PATTERNS AND COMMITMENT TO INFINITE GROWTH CAUSE WAR

Trainer, 04 (The Simpler Way, WORKING FOR TRANSITION FROM CONSUMER SOCIETY TO A SIMPLER, MORE COOPERATIVE, JUST AND
ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. accessed 2004) http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/13-Peace-Conflict.html

The history of humans on this planet can be put in terms of people struggling to grab more than their fair share of the
available wealth and power. Consider the behaviour of states over recent centuries, constantly jockeying diplomatically and fighting each other. Why? Simply
because they are never content to live with what they have or content to organise satisfactory lifestyles for themselves within their own borders. There are always
energetic "entrepreneurs" who are not content with being wealthy; they want more, so they go out looking for more resources and markets, and try to outmanoeuvre and
bully their rivals. States try to increase their wealth, territory, status and power. This is largely what history is about. Many people
havent done this, and as a result we could say that they have no history. We refer to some of these people as "primitive tribes". They maintain stable social systems
within stable boundaries and are not constantly seeking to outsmart or steal from their neighbours. This is not true of all tribes, but it is true of many, and it is totally
foreign to the Western culture with its restless urge to go out and acquire and conquer and build empires and take over markets or one way or another to get more and
more. Most people fail to grasp any of this. They wonder why there are conflict and poverty and poor nations. Every now

and then their leaders tell them their children must go to war and slaughter the children of other people just like themselves. They dont
like this much but it never occurs to them that they have brought it on their own heads by being enthusiastic supporters of
and beneficiaries of the grabbing that has led to the conflict. They have enthusiastic about the empire building, the quest for more markets, the
pursuit of national prestige, and they all want to be members of a great and powerful nation. Why cant they be content to be members of a noble and admirable nation,
or a caring nation? Above all they want the high "living standards" they cant have without taking more than their fair share.

They would angrily reject the claim that they are greedy; they only want normal, nice things. They dont realise that
lifestyles regarded as normal in rich countries are far more resource expensive than all could have .
GROWTH LEADS TO OPPRESSION AND WAR
Trainer, 04 (The Simpler Way, WORKING FOR TRANSITION FROM CONSUMER SOCIETY TO A SIMPLER, MORE COOPERATIVE, JUST AND
ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. accessed 2004) http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D60OurEmpire.2p.html
These unjust arrangements are kept in place mainly by the economic system, A market economy forces people to accept work in the

violence is required; military

action and oppression are sometimes necessary to keep people in poor countries to conventional economic strategies. Rich
countries have a long and detailed history of assisting Third World regimes willing to force their people to comply with
development policies that benefit the rich world, and of intervening with military force to eliminate or install regimes that
will do what we want.
plantations and it delivers most resources and wealth to the richbecause they can pay most for things. But in addition

GROWTH CAUSES WAR

THE MORE WE GROW THE MORE OTHER NATIONS LOSE KILLS MILLIONS
Trainer, 04 (The Simpler Way, WORKING FOR TRANSITION FROM CONSUMER SOCIETY TO A SIMPLER, MORE COOPERATIVE, JUST AND
ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. accessed 2004) http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/10-Our-Empire.html

The living standards we have in rich countries could not be anywhere near as high as they are if the global economy did
not function in these ways. We could not have the resources, the products, the comfort, the health standards or the security from turmoil if we were not getting
far more than our fair share of the worlds wealth. It is a zero sum game ; if we get the coffee that land cannot grow food for local people. If we get oil to
run a ski boat , others get too little to sterilise the contaminated water that kills perhaps 5 million children every year.
Because big fishing boats from rich countries are taking fish from the coasts of poor countries, so our pets can have tinned food, those fish are no longer available to the
poor people of those regions. In most cases market forces are sufficient to keep people in the plantations and sweatshops producing mostly for the benefit of others.
People have no choice but to accept work for very low wages. Often the rich countries can get poor countries to accept rules that suit the

rich simply by virtue of their superior economic power, for instance by threatening to deny access to rich world markets .
GROWTH INCREASES WARS ON LOCAL POPULATIONS
Trainer, 04 (The Simpler Way, WORKING FOR TRANSITION FROM CONSUMER SOCIETY TO A SIMPLER, MORE COOPERATIVE, JUST AND
ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. accessed 2004) http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/10-Our-Empire.html

When things like this happen rich countries do not hesitate to support oppressive regimes willing to keep their countries to
economic policies that will benefit local elites and rich countries, or to get rid of governments that threaten not to go along
with such policies. Usually the rationale is in terms of the need to help a friendly government to put down a rebellion. Until recently this could always be
labelled "communist subversion", thereby eliminating any concerns about the legitimacy of the action. However in Colombia it has recently been labelled as a "war on
the drug trade", and in general it can now be labelled as a "war on terrorism". On many occasions governments of rich countries have waged

ruthless war to install or get rid of regimes, according to whether or not they would facilitate the access of our
corporations and the diversion of their resources and productive capacity to purposes that suited us .
GROWTH INCREASE MILITARISM AND CORPORATISM INCREASING VIOLENCE
Trainer, 04 (The Simpler Way, WORKING FOR TRANSITION FROM CONSUMER SOCIETY TO A SIMPLER, MORE COOPERATIVE, JUST AND
ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. accessed 2004) http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/10-Our-Empire.html

In other words the rich countries have an elaborate and powerful empire which they protect and control mostly via their
economic power but also via the supply of military equipment and training to the repressive client regimes they support
with money and arms, and often via the use of their own military force. Our living standards could not be as high as they are, and our
corporations could not be so profitable, if a great deal of brutal repression was not being used to keep people to the economic policies which enrich us at their expense.
As Herman says, there is a "ruthless imposition of a neo-liberal regime that serves Western transnational corporate interests,

along with a willingness to use unlimited force to achieve Western ends. This is genuine imperialism, sometimes using
economic coercion alone, sometimes supplementing it with violence ."
GROWTH REQUIRES OPPRESSION OF POOR COUNTRIES
Trainer, 04 (The Simpler Way, WORKING FOR TRANSITION FROM CONSUMER SOCIETY TO A SIMPLER, MORE COOPERATIVE, JUST AND
ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. accessed 2004) http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/10-Our-Empire.html
The logic of the situation; Affluence requires an empire, which requires oppression. Following is a selection of statements which focus on the core
situation; i.e., our

affluent lifestyles and the prosperity of our corporations could not be as great as they are if we were not able
to take much more than our fair share of the wealth of many other countries, and in many instances this requires
oppression and brutality. "To maintain its levels of production and consumptionthe US must be assured of getting
increasing amounts of the resources of poor countries. This in turn requires strong support of unpopular and dictatorial regimes which maintain
political and police oppression while serving American interests, to the detriment of their own poor majorities. If on the other hand Third World people controlled their
own political economies,they could then use more of their resources themselvesmuch of the land now used to grow export cash cropswould be used to feed their
own hungry people for example."

GROWTH CAUSES WAR

GLOBAL WARS ARE INEVITABLE WITHOUT REDUCING CONSUMPTION
Trainer, 04 (The Simpler Way, WORKING FOR TRANSITION FROM CONSUMER SOCIETY TO A SIMPLER, MORE COOPERATIVE, JUST AND
ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. accessed 2004) http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/13-Peace-Conflict.html

Our high "living standards" in rich countries would not be possible if we were not getting far more than our fair share of
the worlds resources. The global economy is massively unjust; it increasingly allocates most of the worlds wealth to the
rich few. If we insist on remaining as affluent as we are we will have to remain heavily armed. The best way to become secure is to
live in ways that do not oblige us to hog resources and deprive others. Global peace is not possible without global economic justice, and that
is not possible unless we dramatically reduce consumption and move to The Simpler Way.
GROWTH CAUSES VIOLENCE AND RESOURCE DIVERSION BILLIONS AFFECTED
Trainer, 04 (The Simpler Way, WORKING FOR TRANSITION FROM CONSUMER SOCIETY TO A SIMPLER, MORE COOPERATIVE, JUST AND
ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. accessed 2004) http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/13-Peace-Conflict.html

The global economy is massively unjust. The few, maybe 15% who live in rich countries are taking about 80% of the
resources produced in the world each year. It is not just that they get most of the resources on sale ( simply by being able to pay
most for them). The economy also enables much of the productive capacity of the Third World, especially its land and labour, to be put into producing things to export
to rich world supermarkets. This is why many regard conventional development as a process of legitimised plunder. It mostly

develops industries and structures which deliver resources and wealth to the rich while ignoring the needs of billions of
people and taking from them the capacity to produce for themselves to meet their own basic needs. It is remarkable that the Third
World has expressed so little outrage at this situation. This is partly because Third World countries are ruled by elites who have a strong interest in perpetuating the
system since they benefit from it. This situation has many implications for conflict. Firstly there is the effort Third World elites make to preserve their
privileges by keeping their people down. At times this requires armed oppression, in some countries resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. Brutal

Third World
regimes are often supported by the rich countries because they are willing to give the rich the access they want to Third
World resources and markets.
GROWTH INCREASES MASSIVE ARMS SALES AND OPPRESSION
Trainer, 04 (The Simpler Way, WORKING FOR TRANSITION FROM CONSUMER SOCIETY TO A SIMPLER, MORE COOPERATIVE, JUST AND
ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. accessed 2004) http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/13-Peace-Conflict.html

The most important implication is that the rich countries use arms on a large scale to secure their empire.

For example how long

do you think we could go on getting most of the worlds oil if we did not have huge military forces patrolling the seas, in bases in the Middle East, supporting ruling
elites who are hated by many of their people (e.g., the Saudi royal family.) Similarly armed oppression is required on the part of regimes who

keep their economies to policies that suit us, and rich countries provide arms to make this possible.

Would the 1991 war waged by

the West to expel Iraq from Kuwait have broken out if Kuwait had only been a major exporter of carrots instead of oil? Why was there no war to expel Israel from its
invasion of South Lebanon, or Indonesia when it invaded East Timor? In other words, ARMS ARE NEEDED TO MAINTAIN OUR

EMPIRE, to guarantee your access to more than your fair share of the worlds resources.

If we insist on having a way of life that is far

more extravagant than all can share and that is only possible for the few of us, and if we take far more than our fair share of the world's resources, much of it from Third
World regions, then we will need lots of military force and the readiness to use it. We will also have to go on supplying arms to the Third World

regimes that will keep their societies to the economic policies that suit us .

GROWTH CAUSES WAR

MOST WARS HAPPEN IN ECONOMIC EXPANSION K-WAVES PROVE
INTERNATIONAL KONDRATIEFF FOUNDATION, 04 http://www.natoarw-kw.ubi.pt/scope.htm
the
near term threat for international security comes from conflicts of asymmetric nature, bringing a confusing mix of
stateless actors, separatist and fringe independence movements, insurgence operations, terrorist attacks, the use of WMD
Warfare analysts (1) agree that for the coming decade the threat of a largely bi-polar, superpower-driven global war situation is practically non-existent. Instead,

(Weapons of Mass Destruction), information warfare, and other unconventional threats. There is consensus too that there are few, if any, countries that can militarily
challenge the NATO countries in open combat at the present time, a scenario that, however, can change in the long term. The prevailing view has been that warfare is a
random occurrence having more or less severe or transitory effects on the economic and social system. Contemporary historians, economists, and other system
scientists, who have demonstrated the existence of cyclical patterns, however, are increasingly questioning this view (2-4). There is already very sound and

robust evidence of the existence of long waves in socioeconomic development (5-7), the so-called Kondratieff waves, or simply Kwaves. Long wave theorists have shown a clear secular pattern of recurrence of major wars with a period of 50 to 60 years
(3,4,8,9), as well as a concentration of wars in the upswing phase of the K-wave. Another pattern of 25-year periodicity, probably generationdriven, also emerges from these studies (7,8,10). Evolutionary psychologists are claiming a biologically rooted causation for offensive wars (11,12) which can also
explain some observed recurrent patterns.

WARS ARE EXPENSIVE

Goldstein, 03 (Adjunct Professor (Research), Watson Institute for International Studies, War and Economic History)
http://www.joshuagoldstein.com/jgeconhi.htm
War has profoundly influenced economic history across time and space. Winners of wars have shaped economic institutions and trade patterns. Wars have influenced
technological developments. Above all, recurring war has drained wealth, disrupted markets, and depressed economic growth. Economic Effects of War Wars are

expensive (in money and other resources), destructive (of capital and human capital), and disruptive (of trade, resource availability, labor management, etc.).
Large wars constitute severe shocks to the economies of participating countries. Notwithstanding some positive aspects of
short-term stimulation and long-term destruction and rebuilding, war generally impedes economic development and
undermines prosperity. Several specific economic effects of war recur across historical eras and locales .
PAYING FOR WARS IN A CENTRAL IMPEDIMENT
Goldstein, 03 (Adjunct Professor (Research), Watson Institute for International Studies, War and Economic History)
http://www.joshuagoldstein.com/jgeconhi.htm
The most consistent short-term economic effect of war is to push up prices, and consequently to reduce living standards. This warinduced inflation was described in
ancient China by the strategist Sun Tzu (The Art of War, c.400 BC): "Where the army is, prices are high; when prices rise the wealth of the people is exhausted." His
advice was to keep wars short and have the money in hand before assembling an army. Paying for wars is a central problem for states (see War
Finance). This was especially true in early modern Europe (15th to 18th centuries), when war relied heavily on mercenary forces. The king of Spain was advised that
waging war required three things - money, money, and more money. Spain and Portugal imported silver and gold from America to pay for armies, but in such large
quantities that the value of these metals eventually eroded. One way governments pay for war is to raise taxes (which in turn reduces civilian
spending and investment). U.S. revolutionary Thomas Paine warned in 1787 that "war ... has but one thing certain, and that is to increase taxes." Another

way to
pay for war is to borrow money (which increases government debt), but war-related debts can drive states into bankruptcy as they did to Spain in 1557 and
1596. A third way to fund war is to print more currency (which fuels inflation). Inflation thus often acts as an indirect tax on a national economy to
finance war.

GROWTH CAUSES WAR

ALL WARS ARE FOUGHT OVER RESOURCES
Goldstein, 03 (Adjunct Professor (Research), Watson Institute for International Studies, War and Economic History)
http://www.joshuagoldstein.com/jgeconhi.htm

Nearly all wars are fought over control of territory, and sometimes over specific economic resources such as minerals,
farmland, or cities. The patterns of victory and defeat in wars through history have shaped the direction of the world
economy and its institutions. For example, when Portugal in the 16th century used ship-borne cannons to open sea routes to Asia and wrested the pepper
trade away from Venice (which depended on land routes through the Middle East), it set in motion a profound shift in Europe's economic center of gravity away from
the Mediterranean and towards the Atlantic. Wars of conquest can more than pay for themselves, if successful. The nomadic horse-raiders of the Iron Age Eurasian
steppes found profit in plunder. Similarly, the 17th- to 18th-century Dahomey Kingdom (present-day Benin) made war on its neighbors to capture slaves, whom it sold
to Europeans at port (for guns to continue its wars). War benefitted the Dahomey Kingdom at the expense of its depopulated neighbors. Likewise, present-day armies in
Democratic Congo and Sierra Leone are fighting to control diamond production areas, which in turn fund those armies. According to one controversial school of
thought, states in undertaking wars behave as rational actors maximizing their net benefits. However, wars are fought for

many reasons beyond conquering valuable commodities. Successful empires have used war to centralize control of an
economic zone, often pushing that zone in directions most useful to continued military strength . Transportation and information
infrastructures reflect the central authority's political control. When European states conquered overseas colonies militarily (16th to 19th centuries), they developed
those colonies economically to benefit the mother country. For example, most railroads in southwestern Africa were built - and still run - from mining and plantation
areas to ports. Empires, however, inherently suffer the problems of centralized economies, such as inefficiency, low morale, and stagnation. Some scholars argue that
empires also overstretch their resources by fighting expensive wars far from home, contributing to their own demise.

GROWTH INCREASES DESIRE TO GO TO WAR

Cocks, 99 (Future Makers, Future Takers) http://www.labshop.com.au/dougcocks/3000ad.html
Marchetti (1988) further argues, on the basis of empirical evidence, that many aspects of behaviour in society run in 55 year cycles
matching economic cycles, eg suicide, homicide. Utilising data gathered by Levy (1983) on war severity, Goldstein (1988) demonstrates that there is
a corresponding 50 to 60 year cycle in the number of battle deaths per year for the period 1495- 1975. Beyond merely showing that the Kondratieff
cycle and the war cycle are linked in a systematic fashion, Goldstein's research suggests that severe core wars are much
more likely to occur late in the upswing phase of the Kondratieff cycle . This finding is interpreted as showing that, while states always
desire to go to war, they can afford to do so only when economic growth is providing them with sufficient resources! Watts
(1992) modelling of social systems suggests that the cyclic occurrence of wars and depressions are the alternate consequences of ineffective feedback controls, eg on the
rate of repatriation of war debt, on post-war birth rates. Blainey (1988) sees the modern world as swinging between moods of technooptimism and enviro-pessimism,
but not with any strict periodicity.

GROWTH MAKES WAR INEVITABLE

Trainer, 02 (University of NSW, Kensington, Australia. Published in Democracy and Nature, 8, 2, July 2002.)
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D62IfYouWantAffluence.html
Following are some references to the connection many have recognised between rich world affluence and conflict. General M.D. Taylor, U.S. Army retired argued
"...U.S. military priorities just be shifted towards insuring a steady flow of resources from the Third World." Taylor referred to "...fierce competition among industrial
powers for the same raw materials markets sought by the United States" and "... growing hostility displayed by have-not nations towards their affluent counterparts."62
"Struggles are taking place, or are in the offing, between rich and poor nations over their share of the world product; within the industrial world over their share of
industrial resources and markets".63 "That more than half of the people on this planet are poorly nourished while a small percentage live in historically unparalleled
luxury is a sure recipe for continued and even escalating international conflict."64

GROWTH CAUSES WAR

WAR CANT BE AVOIDED WITHOUT ZERO GROWTH
Trainer, 02 (University of NSW, Kensington, Australia. Published in Democracy and Nature, 8, 2, July 2002.)
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D62IfYouWantAffluence.html

The logically inescapable implications from the foregoing discussion is that global peace cannot be achieved before there
has been a vast and historically unprecedented transition to "The Simpler Way'. The accelerating global predicament
cannot be remedied until social, economic, political and cultural systems based on competitive individualism,
acquisitiveness, affluence and growth are abandoned and replaced by ways of life based on production to meet needs
rather than profits, high levels of individual and local self-sufficiency, cooperation, participation, mutual assistance and
sharing, and above all on willing acceptance of materially simple lifestyles within zero-growth national economies. This
does not mean hardship and deprivation; indeed it can be argued that high levels of simplicity, self sufficiency and
cooperation are the necessary conditions for a high quality of life , as well as for global justice and ecological sustainability. Nor does it mean
absence of sophisticated technology and research. It does mean a landscape made up mostly of small towns and villages within comfortable distance of small cities by
public transport, with relatively little heavy industry, travel and transport, international trade or big firms. Most "government" would have to be carried out through
small local participatory assemblies. Because large sectors of the present economy would no longer be necessary, the overall amount of work for monetary income
would probably be reduced by two-thirds, enabling a much more relaxed pace of life. There would be no need to reduce the sophistication and quality of research and
technology within socially desirable fields. Needless to say the simpler Way would require the abandonment of an economy in which

profit and the market are the major determinants of production, consumption or development, and it would require a
steady state or zero growth overall economy. Most difficult would be the radical changes in values.

POVERTY
GROWTH INCREASES POVERTY
Trainer, 02 (University of NSW, Kensington, Australia. Published in Democracy and Nature, 8, 2, July 2002.)
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D62IfYouWantAffluence.html

The core elements in the response to the events of September 11, 2001 made by Western media, governments, and general
publics was a stunned incredulity that anyone would want to do such things. As the editors of Monthly Review put it, people respond as if
"A benevolent democratic and peace loving nation was brutally attacked by insane evil terrorists who hate the US " 1. Consequently the acts could only be interpreted
as irrational, unjustified, criminal and driven by fanaticism and/or insanity. This response derives from the dominant view of the way the global economy works. This

view assumes a world market economy in which a nations fate is rightly determined primarily by its capacity to compete
according to the rules of the impartial and efficient global market place. Rich nations are assumed to have achieved far higher living
standards because they are further down the path to modernity, a path which all can and will follow, although many Third World countries are severely handicapped by
corruption, difficult environments and lack of resources. Rich countries are taken to assist poor countries in their struggle to develop, giving aid and loans and bringing
foreign investment. Because development is essentially seen in terms of increasing the volume of production for sale it is understood that the more poor countries
facilitate market forces, trade and investment, financial transfers with rich countries the faster development will occur. The problems poor countries experience are seen
to be either due to difficult circumstances beyond their control, such as poor soils, overpopulation, or corruption, or their technical and social backwardness. The
relationship is therefore regarded as being based on mutual benefit, and more commonly as noble in that rich countries are helping poor countries to develop. This

dominant, taken for granted view of the situation is almost entirely invalid. Following are some of the core elements in a more accurate
representation of the way the world works. Rich countries are taking most of the worlds resource production. Their per capita resource
consumption is about 20 times the average of the poorest half of the worlds people. That they are consuming far more than their fair share is evident in many measures;
for example, to provide a North American lifestyle requires approximately 12 ha of productive land, but the per capital average amount of productive land on the planet
is only 1.2 ha. The rich squander resources on affluent living standards and frivolous luxuries while billions live in poverty.
Many of these resources are drawn from the Third World. Much of the productive capacity of the Third World has been allocated to the production of commodities and
manufactured goods for the benefit of the corporations and banks in the rich countries, who own the plantations and factories, and of the people who shop in rich world
supermarkets. Very little of the benefit goes to the poor majority in the Third World. Shirt makers in Bangladesh are paid 15 cents an hour.2 In other words, the
development that has taken place is almost totally inappropriate to the needs of most Third World people.

GROWTH ONLY HELPS THE RICH

Trainer, 02 (University of NSW, Kensington, Australia. Published in Democracy and Nature, 8, 2, July 2002.)
http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D62IfYouWantAffluence.html

The crucial point about "development" is to do with options foregone. It is easy to imagine forms of development that are
far more likely to meet the needs of people, their society and their ecosystems but these are prohibited by
conventional/capitalist development . Needs would be most effectively met if people were able to apply their available resources of land, forest, fisheries,
labour, skill and capital to the production of basic items such as food and shelter. This is precisely what normal conventional/capitalist development prevents, because it
ensures that the available resources and the productive capacity are drawn into the most profitable ventures, which means mostly into producing relatively luxurious
items for export to richer people. Compare the capacity of a worker to feed his family on the 15c an hour wage earned in a shirt factory, spent on food imported from a
rich country, with the approximately four hours per week required by a home gardener to produce all the vegetables a family requires.3 The global economy is

therefore an imperial system, one in which there is a net flow of resources and wealth from the poor to the rich and the
resources the poor majority of people once had have been taken from them and now produce mostly for the benefit of the
rich few.

CHINA MOD
CHINESE ECONOMIC EXPANSION INCREASES CHANCE OF TAIWAN AND SOUTH CHINA SEAS WAR
Eland, 03 (CATO, Is Chinese Military Modernization a Threat to the United States?) http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa465.pdf
The United States fears any attempt by China to increase its influence in East or Southeast Asia. Yet, as the Chinese economy grows and China
becomes a great power, it will naturally seek more control over its external environment. As Michael OHanlon and Bates Gill, both
then at the Brookings Institution, perceptively noted, most of Chinas ambitions are not global and are no longer ideological; they are
territorial and confined to exerting more regional influence over the islands and waterways to the south and southeast of
its borders.
WAR WITH CHINA LEADS TO EXTINCTION
Straits Times 2000 (6-25-00)
THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If
Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes
unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already
told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its
retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on

fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted,
Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape . The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In
south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous
phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the
Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a
personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with
two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long
before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that

China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for
the nuclear option. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons.
Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for
Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders
considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that

come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation .

TERRORISM MOD

Terrorism:
a) GROWTH INCREASES VIOLENT BACKLASH AND TERRORISM AGAINST THE U.S.
Trainer, 04 (The Simpler Way, WORKING FOR TRANSITION FROM CONSUMER SOCIETY TO A SIMPLER, MORE COOPERATIVE, JUST AND
ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY. accessed 2004) http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/10-Our-Empire.html

Any serious student of international relations or US foreign policy will be clearly aware of the general scope and
significance of the empire which rich countries operate, and of the human rights violations, the violence and injustice this
involves. Rich world "living standards", corporate prosperity, comfort and security could not be sustained at anywhere near current levels without this empire, nor
without the oppression, violence and military activity that keep in place conventional investment, trade and development policies. It should therefore be not in
the least surprising that several hundred million people more or less hate the rich Western nations. This is the context in
which events like those of September 11 must be understood. (For documents relevant to Sept. 11, see a section within Our Empire,
COLLECTED DOCUMENTS.) It is surprising that the huge and chronic injustice, plunder, repression and indifference evident in
the global economic system has not generated a much greater hostile reaction from the Third World, and more eagerness
to hit back with violence. This is partly explained by the fact that it is in the interests of Third World rulers to acquiesce in conventional development
strategies.

b) TERRORISM WILL LEAD TO EXTINCTION

Pacotti, March 31, 03 (Are we doomed yet?) http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/03/31/knowledge/index.html
A similar trend has appeared in proposed solutions to high-tech terrorist threats. Advances in biotech, chemistry, and other fields are expanding the power of individuals
to cause harm, and this has many people worried. Glenn E. Schweitzer and Carole C. Dorsch, writing for The Futurist, gave this warning in 1999: " Technological

advances threaten to outdo anything terrorists have done before; superterrorism has the potential to eradicate civilization
as we know it." Schweitzer and Dorsch are so alarmed that they go on to say, "Civil liberties are important for a democratic society; the time has arrived, however,
to reconfigure some aspects of democracy, given the violence that is on the doorstep." The Sept. 11 attacks have obviously added credence to their opinions. In 1999,
they recommended an expanded role for the CIA, "greater government intervention" in Americans' lives, and the "honorable deed" of "whistle-blowing" -- proposals
that went from fringe ideas to policy options and talk-show banter in less than a year. Taken together, their proposals aim to gather information from companies and
individuals and feed that information into government agencies. A network of cameras positioned on street corners would nicely complement their vision of America
during the 21st century. If after Sept. 11 and the anthrax scare these still sound like wacky Orwellian ideas to you, imagine how

they will sound the day a terrorist opens a jar of Ebola-AIDS spores on Capitol Hill . As Sun Microsystems' chief scientist, Bill Joy,
warned: "We have yet to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century technologies -- robotics, genetic engineering,
and nanotechnology -- pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. Specifically, robots, engineered organisms,
and nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: They can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once -- but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of
control." Joy calls the new threats "knowledge-enabled mass destruction." To cause great harm to millions of people, an extreme person will

need only dangerous knowledge, which itself will move through the biosphere , encoded as matter, and flit from place to place as easily as
dangerous ideas now travel between our minds. In the information age, dangerous knowledge can be copied and disseminated at light speed, and it threatens everyone.
Therefore, Joy's perfectly reasonable conclusion is that we should relinquish "certain kinds of knowledge." He says that it is time to reconsider the open, unrestrained
pursuit of knowledge that has been the foundation of science for 300 years. "[D]espite the strong historical precedents, if open access to and unlimited development
of knowledge henceforth puts

us all in clear danger of extinction, then common sense demands that we reexamine even these basic, long-held beliefs."

SYSTEMIC IMPACT
GROWTH KILLS 40,000 PEOPLE PER DAY, MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE
Trainer 96 Ted, Professor New South Wales, Towards a Sustainable Economy
This examination of the scarcity of resources leads to the crucial limits to growth conclusion. It is not possible for all the worlds people to rise to
the rates of per capita resource and energy use enjoyed by the one-fifth of the worlds people who live in rich countries
today.
This means that we are the overdeveloped countries and the rest are the never-to-be-developed countries. We can only be as affluent as we are because
we are hogging most of the dwindling resources. If we are to remain as affluent as we are the rest must remain much poorer than we are.
While the rich countries take more than three-quarters of the resources produced in the world, most people are deprived of
basic necessities. Many of the resources we consume in rich countries are exported from poor countries, including large
quantities of food. At least 40,000 people die every day because of deprivation. Our resource expensive way of life is
therefore not just impossible to sustain, it is morally indefensible .

BIODIVERSITY MOD
A) INCREASED GROWTH KILLS ENDANGERED SPECIES
Living Rainforest, 04 http://www.livingrainforest.org/about/economies/pet-trade
As with the trade in hardwoods, the capture and sale of animals from tropical forests has become a lucrative business for some
people, and is thought to be the second biggest cause of species loss after habitat destruction. Unfortunately many of the animals die
before they even reach a pet shop; some estimate the losses to be as high as 90%. The desire to keep unusual species appears to be fuelling this trade, with the resultant
threat to animals in their natural habitat. With increased affluence in the west, this trade is becoming ever more attractive to those trying

to make a living from the forests, but it is by its very nature an unsustainable activity , as the numbers of individuals within each species
are often quite low despite the great biodiversity of the ecosystem. The threat to the world's endangered species has been recognised in the Convention on the
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which seeks to limit this trade by making it illegal to export or import protected species of both plants and animals.
As with the attempt to regulate the timber trade, the rules are frequently flouted. Smuggling has also become ever more prevalent as the rewards increase.

B) SPECIES EXTINCTION CAN CAUSE TOTAL EXTINCTION

Peter Montague, December 14, 1995, Rachel's Environment & Health News, The Four Horsemen -- Part 2: Loss of Biodiversity
Extinction itself is a natural process. But humans have speeded up that process greatly; extinctions are now occurring at a rate 100 to 1000 times faster than the natural
rate of extinctions (see REHW #441).[2] Extinctions are dangerous for humans, but it is not immediately clear just how dangerous. In
their 1984 book, EXTINCTION, Paul

and Anne Ehrlich compare our situation to an airplane held together by rivets. As time goes
on, an occasional rivet will pop out. No single rivet is essential for maintaining flight, but eventually if we pop enough
rivets, a crash seems certain to occur. So it is with humans and the other species with whom we share the planet. No single
species is essential to our well being, yet it is certain that we need biological diversity in order to survive. Therefore each
time we diminish diversity, we take another irreversible step toward the brink of a dark abyss. In the process, we desecrate the
wondrous works of the creator.

WATER WAR MOD

A) GROWTH INCREASES DEMANDS FOR WATER INCREASE SCARCITY, SPECIFICALLY IN THE
MIDEAST
Brown, 2000 (Worldwatch Institute, Population growth sentencing millions to hydrological poverty) http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0700/et0700s8.html
Rising affluence in itself generates additional demand for water. As people move up the food chain, consuming more beef,
pork, poultry, eggs, and dairy products, they use more grain. A US diet rich in livestock products requires 800 kilograms of grain per person a
year, whereas diets in India, dominated by a starchy food staple such as rice, typically need only 200 kilograms. Using four times as much grain per
person means using four times as much water. Once a localized phenomenon, water scarcity is now crossing national
borders via the international grain trade. The world's fastest growing grain import market is North Africa and the Middle
East, an area that includes Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and the Middle East through Iran. Virtually every country in this region is simultaneously
experiencing water shortages and rapid population growth.

B) FUTURES WARS WILL BE FOUGHT OVER WATER

Brown, 2000 (Worldwatch Institute, Population growth sentencing millions to hydrological poverty) http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0700/et0700s8.html
It is now often said that future wars in the region will more likely be fought over water than oil. Perhaps, but given the difficulty
in winning a water war, the competition for water seems more likely to take place in world grain markets. The countries
that will "win" in this competition will be those that are financially strongest, not those that are militarily strongest. The
world water deficit grows larger with each year, making it potentially more difficult to manage. If we decided abruptly to stabilize water tables everywhere by simply
pumping less water, the world grain harvest would fall by some 160 million tons, or 8 percent, and grain prices would go off the top of the chart. If the deficit continues
to widen, the eventual adjustment will be even greater. Unless governments in water-short countries act quickly to stabilize population and to raise water productivity,
their water shortages may soon become food shortages. The risk is that the growing number of water-short countries, including population giants
China and India, with rising grain import needs will overwhelm the exportable supply in food surplus countries, such as the United States, Canada, and Australia. This
in turn could destabilize world grain markets. Another risk of delay in dealing with the deficit is that some low-income, water-short countries will not be able to afford
to import needed grain, trapping millions of their people in hydrological poverty, thirsty and hungry, unable to escape.

C) WAR IN THE MIDEAST CAUSES GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR

Steinbach, DC Iraq Coalition, March 2002 http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.03/0331steinbachisraeli.htm
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for
future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war break out in the
Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear escalation, once
unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability."( 41) and Ezar Weissman, Israel's current President said "The nuclear
issue is gaining momentum (and the) next war will not be conventional."(42) Russia and before it the Soviet Union has long been a major (if not the major) target of
Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super
sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (43) (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at
the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is
enormously destabilizing, and dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the familar
pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon - for whatever reason - the deepening Middle East

conflict could trigger a world conflagration."

CHD MOD
A) GROWTH INCREASES CORONARY HEART DISEASE
Davidson, 04 (Understanding coronary heart disease. A Family Doctor Publication in Association with the British Medical Association)
http://www.mypharmacy.co.uk/health_books/books/u/understanding_coronary_heart_disease.htm

In general, CHD is a disease of affluence. It is much less common in the tropics and developing countries, and is most
common in northern Europe, North America and Australasia. It does seem to be related in some way to lifestyle, because
when people move from the developing countries to a more affluent culture they get CHD much more often than they
would have done at home. This is particularly noticeable among immigrants from the Indian subcontinent who come to the UK and who then become even
more likely to develop CHD than people who were born here.

B) CHD CAUSES 1 IN EVERY 5 DEATHS IN THE U.S., EVERY MINUTE SOMEONE DIES FROM IT
NY State Dept of Health, 04 http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/heart/aboutchd.htm
CHD is the single largest killer in the United States, causing 481,287 deaths in 1995 -nearly 1 in every 5 deaths. It is estimated that
better than 1 million Americans will have a new or recurrent coronary attack, and about one-third of them will die. Every
29 seconds, an American will suffer a coronary event, and about every minute someone will die from one. Each year more than
250,000 people will die of CHD within 1 hour of the onset of symptoms and before they reach a hospital. Almost 14 million people have a history of heart disease.

NANOTECH MOD
A) ECONOMIC DOWNTURN DECREASE DEMAND FOR NANOTECH
Eckelbecker, June 25, 03 (TELEGRAM & GAZETTE (Massachusetts))
So far, the question of educating future nanotechnology workers is not an urgent one. Mr. Goodnick said employers are exerting little pressure on
colleges to change curricula to accommodate nanotechnology, and the economy's downturn has blunted overall demand
from some large employers for new engineering graduates. But professors and others are thinking ahead to the time when
that could change. ''Everybody looks to the future and sees there's going to be this big shift of science and engineering, '' he
said.

B) NANOTECH CAN LEAD TO EXTINCTION

BROWN, Jan 3, 2001 (The New Zealand Herald)
The human race will be at the mercy of machines in future, says one of the world's top computer scientists. Bill Joy, co-founder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems,
believes our worst sci-fi nightmares could be just around the corner. He fears that humans may become so dependent on robots that they will
come to accept all their decisions and ultimately find themselves superfluous - nothing more than domestic pets. Mr Joy helped to invent some of the key 20th century
technological innovations, such as JavaScript. While many of the ideas depicted in Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey remain fantasy, Mr Joy has
speculated on what the future holds in an interview with CBS television in the United States to mark the start of the new year. The interview echoed views he outlined
in an article in the magazine Wired last year, entitled "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us." The future troubles Mr Joy because he believes humans' quest to invent bigger,
brighter and smarter machines will come back to haunt us. He predicts that by 2030 an intelligent robot could be built, and from there "it is only a small step to a robot
species - to an intelligent robot that can make evolved copies of itself." The ability of robots and other engineered organisms to replicate

poses great danger to the human race. "A bomb is blown up only once, but one robot can become many, and quickly get
out of control." The dream of immortality could also lead humans down the path of extinction , as robotic technology will allow us to
download our consciousness into a machine. "We are beginning to see intimations of this in the implantation of computer devices into the human body ... but if we are
downloaded into our technology, what are the chances that we will thereafter be ourselves or even be human?" Scientists of the 21st century are "on the cusp of the
further perfection of extreme evil," says Mr Joy, who fears the development of a "white plague" that could see diseases purposely unleashed to strike selected groups.
Advancements in genetic engineering could see new bacteria and plants wipe out existing species and nanotechnology minuscule devices - could

potentially destroy our biosphere.

NANO EXTENSIONS
SPREAD OF NANOTECH WEAPONS WILL BE STIMULATED BY CORPORATIONS
Gubrud, 2003 (Nanotechnology and International Security, Center for Superconductivity Research) http://www.csr.umd.edu/~mgubrud/nanosec1.html
With the advent of nanotechnology, the qualitative advances in weapons technology will be enormous and compelling; no
country will want to maintain armies that are effectively impotent against a potential threat. Molecular manufacturing based on
selfreplicating systems, and superautomation by artificial intelligence, will also profoundly alter the issue of cost. A nations military potential will depend first on its
position in the technology race. A second factor will be its natural resource base, but most nations have access to sufficient natural resources to support an arsenal many
times larger than any which has ever existed on Earth. Currently the development of nanoelectronics and nanofabrication, biotechnology,
supramolecular chemistry, and other steps toward molecular nanotechnology is a worldwide academic and industrial enterprise.
No country can be said to have a lead in the race to develop assemblers, because there isnt any race and no one is even close. But when and if it becomes clear that
something like molecular manufacturing based on selfreplicating assemblers lies within reach of, say, a five-year effort, it is likely that a race will begin. Industry

will be heavily involved, but national efforts will be stimulated and coordinated by government and military initiatives. The leading competitors will be those
with the greatest concentration of advanced technology: the United States, Japan and Europe. However, the race will also be joined by countries such as Russia, China,
India, Israel, and others that have a strong technology base, a lot of resources, or both.

CAPITALISM WILL DIFFUSE NANOTECH WORLDWIDE TRANSITION WILL BE ROUGH

Gubrud, 2003 (Nanotechnology and International Security, Center for Superconductivity Research)
http://www.csr.umd.edu/~mgubrud/nanosec1.html
Perhaps it will all turn out just fine; a harmonious, golden age of plenty would seem to be possible. But we dont know how to
organize one. If genocidal dictatorships seem an extreme possibility, universal brotherhood, generosity and tolerance seems
equally difficult to arrange. Global capitalism, in its twilight, may serve to diffuse technology, even nanotechnology, worldwide,
and underdeveloped countries may find their economic independence in industries such as tourism and hand-made goods.
Advanced countries may find a way to share wealth and power internally, and avoid conflicts with one another. But it hardly
seems likely that the transition will be smooth.

DESTROYS ENVIRONMENT
THIS OVERCONSUMPTION IS A VICIOUS CYCLE OF DESTRUCTION AND DEATH
Huxley, 04 (Prof. Env. Studies, Overconsumption -- Global)
http://www.uwlax.edu/murphy/environment/overconsumption/global1.html

Global consumption is synonymous with death, pollution, rape, genocide and environmental degradation . For example, the
United States gets oil from Colombia where a group of people called the Uwa are being killed and their land is being
destroyed because they have no political power. They have been thrown into a vicious cycle in which they cannot avoid.
The United States over consumes its oil supplies, so they need to find more in Columbia. Exxon Oil then has to cut down
more rainforest and kill more people that protest. The Protesters rally and act in defense, so the Columbian and American governments supply Exxon
with soldiers and arms to protect and kill people who get in their way (Gedicks p. 1). The added oil extraction destroys even more land and kills more indigenous people
and no body can help. When America needs more oil again, the process continues. This same cycle is present in Libya for diamonds, Nigeria for
oil, and Northern Wisconsin for metal, and Nevada for nuclear waste disposal. All

these examples are direct effects of over consumption .

OVERPOPULATION
GROWTH DOES NOT DECREASE POPULATION, ACTUALLY INCREASES FERTILITY RATES
Wolf, 04 (Prof. Phil, POPULATION GROWTH, For The Blackwell Companion to Environmental Philosophy, Dale Jamieson, ed, accessed date)
http://www.phil.uga.edu/faculty/wolf/popart.htm
The success or failure of this conclusion depends, however, on the nature of the development process. Economist Simon Kuznets famously hypothesized that initial
income inequalities resulting from early stages of economic development should gradually level out as the benefits of economic prosperity are more broadly distributed.
Frank Notestein proposed a corresponding hypothesis that fertility rates in developing countries will initially spike upwards, but that they too should level off or even
decline as the changes due to economic development lead couples to choose smaller families. This second hypothesis (the "Notestein Demographic Transition
Hypothesis") is based on the assumption that effective economic development will raise the opportunity costs of having children, since children will be selected among
a broader range of desirable alternatives. Economic development is also supposed to diminish the motive to have children as protection
for old age security, as social institutions provide alternate means for protection of well-being in old age. But

like many efforts in "ideal theory," these

optimistic economic hypotheses seem to apply poorly to the real world. As Lester Brown notes, many developing countries seem
trapped in the second stage where fertility spikes upward, but are "unable to achieve the economic and social gains that
are counted upon to reduce births."(Brown et al, 1987. p. 20) Perhaps it is the failure of Kuznets's Hypothesis that explains the failure of Notestein's
Demographic Transition Hypothesis: fertility rates do not fall in the poor sectors of the population because the purported benefits of
economic development are often not distributed widely within the population, and since economic development often
increases social inequalities instead of alleviating them , when a powerful minority manages to reap the economic benefits.
FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION INCREASES POPULATION GROWTH
Zabel, 2000 (Population and Energy) http://www.dieoff.org/page199.htm
It is clear that availability of fossil fuels, in particular crude oil, has had a profound effect on population growth. Population has
grown because death rates have declined worldwide, but birth rates have remained at high levels in many parts of the
world. Oil arguably plays a part in both phenomena. Oil provides the energy needed to grow and distribute food, and to
increase the nutritional content of agricultural produce. Extensive land, air and sea transportation networks enable easy
distribution of food. This stimulates mortality decline by getting food to the people that need it, alleviating local food
shortages, flying food aid to drought stricken regions and shipping grain to countries whose populations have grown
larger than their output of food. As recently as the eighteenth century in Europe, food was typically transported no more than 15 kilometres. Today, jumbo
jets transport fresh food around the world everyday. Oil also plays a significant part in the so-called Green Revolution that has led to
growth in agricultural output that has managed to keep up with or even exceed the number of mouths that require feeding.
Green Revolution agriculture relies on large amounts of pesticides and fertilisers, products highly dependent on oil and gas. Intensification of agriculture
leads to surplus production, enabling greater increases in population which in turn lead to still greater demands for food.
Water for agriculture is also highly dependent on fossil fuels. Pumping of aquifers and groundwater for irrigation is a phenomenon of the late twentieth century, made
possible by the availability of electricity and cheap pumps.