Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 19

1/19

A. Interpretation The affirmative must affirm the topic instrumentally. The 1AC must include a topical plan that is only justified with a normative defense of federal government adoption of such a policy. The ballot only declares that the resolution is either true or false. The topic is defined by the phrase following the colon the USFG is the agent of the resolution, not the individual debaters Websters Guide to Grammar and Writing 2000
http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/colon.htm Use of a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself. Think of the colon as a gate, inviting one to go on If the introductory phrase preceding the colon is very brief and the clause following the colon represents the real business of the sentence, begin the clause after the colon with a capital letter.

Should denotes an expectation of enacting a plan American Heritage Dictionary 2000 [www.dictionary.com]
3 Used to express probability or expectation

B) Violationthe aff does not defend the United States federal government action C) Vote negative 1. Ground Refusing to defend the implementation of the plan/resolution erases all predictable negative disad and case ground. Well never have evidence saying their specific advocacy of the plan is bad. This eliminates all of our offense since testing their method is key. 2. Process impact this is the only academic forum where we get education based on clash and competition. If we arent able to prepare in advance for affirmatives the round becomes a 2 hour conference presentation about whatever books & articles they are reading, This education o/w any content specific education because A) You can get content specific education in any other forum B) Without critical thinking skills developed through clash and competition we cant effectively act on content-specific knowledge English et al 7 Eric English, Stephen Llano, Gordon R. Mitchell, Catherine E. Morrison,
John Rief & Carly Woods, all former debate coaches, Debate as a Weapon of Mass Destruction http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/EnglishDAWG.pdf It is our position, however, that rather than acting as a cultural technology expanding American exceptionalism, switch-side debating originates from a civic attitude that serves as a bulwark against fundamentalism of all stripes. Several prominent voices reshaping the national dialogue on homeland security have come from the academic debate community and draw on its animating spirit of critical inquiry. For example, Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal served as lead plaintiff s counsel in

2/19

which challenged post-9/11 enemy combat definitions. 12 The foundation for Katyals winning argument in Hamdan was laid some four years before, when he collaborated with former intercollegiate debate champion Laurence Tribe on an influential Yale Law Journal addressing a similar topic.13 Tribe won the National Debate Tournament in 1961 while competing as an undergraduate debater
Hamdan, for Harvard University. Thirty years later, Katyal represented Dartmouth College at the same tournament and finished third.

The imprint of this debate training is evident in Tribe and Katyals contemporary public interventions, which are characterized by meticulous research, sound argumentation, and a staunch commitment to democratic
principles. Katyals reflection on his early days of debating at Loyola High School in Chicagos North Shore provides a vivid illustration. I came in as a shy freshman with dreams of going to medical school. Then Loyolas debate team opened my eyes to a different world: one of argumentation and policy. As Katyal recounts, the most important preparation for my career came from my experiences as a member of Loyolas debate team.14 The success of former

debaters like Katyal, Tribe, and others in challenging the dominant dialogue on homeland security points to the efficacy of academic debate as a training ground for future advocates of progressive change. Moreover, a robust understanding of the switch-side technique and the classical liberalism which underpins it would help prevent misappropriation of the technique to bolster suspect homeland security policies. For buried within an inner-city debaters files is a
secret threat to absolutism: the refusal to be classified as with us or against us, the embracing of intellectual experimentation in an age of orthodoxy, and reflexivity in the face of fundamentalism. But by now, the irony of our story should be 224 E. English et al. Downloaded By: [University of Pittsburgh] At: 21:56 16 May 2007 apparent*the more

effectively academic debating practice can be focused toward these ends, the greater the proclivity of McCarthys ideological heirs to brand the activity as a weapon of mass destruction.

C) Without clash-based education we are likely to come to the wrong conclusions about the content b/c we dont see both sides 3. Extra Topicality they skirt discussion of the plans merits by arguing the benefits derived from their advocacy outweigh. This is a voting issue because were forced to win framework just to get back to equal footing extra topicality also proves the resolution insufficient and explodes aff ground. 4. Turns the case advocating USFG increase of democracy assistance is crucial to breaking down the clash of civilization discourse that causes Islamophobia and orientalism---empirics prove that effective democracy promotion disaggregated from hard-line Iraq-style invasion has a positive effect---and, even if it doesnt succeed its productive to advocate SHIBLEY TELHAMI 5, Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development, University of
Maryland Democracy: Rising Tide or Mirage Middle East Policy Vol 12 Issue 2 May 23 2005 Wiley I think we all agree that, no matter how we define democracy, the Middle East badly needs political and economic reform, and that most people in the region desperately want it. I'd like to focus on two aspects of this issue. One is the extent to which American foreign policy is linked to democratic
moves in the region. The second is how the public sees both the issue of democracy and the American role in that issue. I will begin with the American role. In our public discourse, there's been a very quick move

to claim all of these things that have transpired as moves towards democracy--in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, the Palestinian areas and Iraq. One of the failures in this discourse is to differentiate between the impact of the Iraq

3/19

War itself oi l the issue of political reform in the region and the advocacy of democracy as a priority in American foreign policy and the actual consequences for political reform in the region. Those are not the same things. To begin with, I would argue that the consequences of the Iraq War have been largely negative on the issue of reform in the Middle East, and that the consequences of the advocacy of democracy have been more positive on reform in the Middle East. Let me give you examples of what I mean and how the region
sees it. I do public opinion polls in six Arab countries: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. I ask questions about political issues and foreign policy, the United States, the role of the media. In 2004, which is the last one I took, we asked people in those six countries: do you believe that the Middle East is more democratic or less democratic than it was before the Iraq War? The vast majority of people in every country believed the Middle East had become less democratic than it was before the Iraq War. We asked why that was the case. Certainly part of it is probably psychological. Ninety percent of the people opposed the war, and it's very hard to come back and say, well, something good came out of it. But I think there's something objective that they're seeing that transpired before, during and immediately alter the war. You had a situation where 90 percent of the public passionately opposed the Iraq War. They believed that it went against Arab interests. Arab governments had to make a strategic decision whether they supported the United States or not. They made a strategic decision generally to support the United States, and in the process they became far more insecure. They preempted organizations, they arrested people, they limited freedom of speech--and in the case of Egypt, extended the emergency law on the eve of the war. That's what the public saw, and that is what the public is reacting to. So, in general, I think the war has had, at least in the short term, a negative

impact on reform. The advocacy of democracy I see as a completely separate issue. One can even argue that the Iraq War delayed the possibility of democracy. The advocacy of democracy has had a generally positive impact , although I think it is sometimes

exaggerated. I want to state again that as of 2004, based on our survey, when you asked Arabs whether they believed American policy intends to spread democracy in the Middle East, the vast majority said no. So there is mistrust. The public in the region does not see the advocacy of democracy as a priority in American foreign policy, and they're basing that on a historical trend: the reversals in the past, the contradictions, and the double standards on a variety of issues. They think this is a tactical move by the United States. Marina has already talked about Iraq. I think, in general, having

elections is good; people in the Arab world are somewhat inspired by elections. But the general interpretation is that you still have an American occupation, that this is a Shia

empowerment; and that there is an intent to weaken the Arabs in the Muslim world. In the case of the Palestinian areas, I think it's fair to say that it's not a direct consequence of the advent of democracy. The Palestinians had elections in the middle 1990s. They had been asking for elections for a couple of years, but they were not granted elections while Ararat was still alive, for fear that he would win and be empowered as a consequence. In fact, there was a delay of elections until Arafat died. In the case of Lebanon, it's not an issue of democracy. But it is important for democracy to have people stand up to authority and take risks. That's inspiring. The sight of hundreds of thousands of Lebanese taking to the streets is consequential for people in the Arab world. But if you look at the responsiveness of Syria, one can argue that the American factor was only part of it. Clearly, the demonstrations themselves were first and foremost driven by the assassination of Rafik Hariri. But the Syrian responsiveness was not related only to the American position. It was related to the fact that you had a UN resolution and a French-American position. The Syrians could probably have withstood American pressure if they had had unanimous support in Europe and the Middle East. I think we ought to be careful here in terms of cause and effectrelating to Syria. In Egypt and Saudi Arabia, one can argue that there is domestic pressure for reform, and both of these governments are responding to it. But you can also argue that these governments

responded in part to pressure from the United States. They believe that they had to; that the United States is making this a priority; that the president of the United States needs to show some results--for political reasons at least.
I don't think these governments believe that the Bush administration is advocating democracy as an end in itself. They believe that the administration is using it to get strategic cooperation from them and to claim political credit at home. Each one of them has given the administration enough to claim political credit. The problem for the administration will be that once they have moved a country from the negative to the positive side of the ledger, their hands are tied. It's very hard politically to move it back. We've seen this with Libya. It was claimed that they no longer had weapons of mass destruction. Now Libya is on the positive side of the ledger, regardless of its authoritarianism. The minute you move it back, you lose ground politically in the United States. So now our hands are tied and we have a problem. Whatever the

intent of the advocacy for democracy, I think it opens up space. It takes away the Tiananmen Square option for governments in the Middle East, and that allows people to be more empowered to test the waters. They can take more risks. There is a second impact that most of us haven't thought about enough. It's been profoundly helpful in our own discourse in America. It has overshadowed the "clash of civilizations" thesis. Suddenly Arabs are normal people in the American discourse. There is no barrier of culture or religion; it is just bad governments. We talk about an Arab Spring as we talk about a Prague

4/19

Spring. This is a helpful discourse in America,


sharpness of the clash on the other side.

and it might in the end even reduce the

D. Voting Issue If we demonstrate the affirmative does not meet the best interpretation of the topic they have failed to justify the resolution and should be rejected. This is the best way to preserve competitive equity by ensuring predictable ground for the negative. Also, this is a prerequisite to other arguments. Ruth Lesl Shively, Professor of Politics at Texas A&M, 2000 [Partisan Politics and Political
Theory, p. 181-2]
In most cases, however, our agreements are highly imperfect. We agree on some matters but not on others, on generalities but not on specifics, on principles but not on their applications, and so on. And this kind of limited agreement is the starting condition of contest and debate. As John Courtney Murray writes: We hold certain truths; therefore

we can argue about them. It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to
assume that argument ends when agreement is reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true. There can be no agreement except on the premise, and within a context, of agreement. (Murray 1960, 10) In other words, we cannot argue

about something if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidence or good argument. At the very least, we must agree about what it is that is being debated before we can debate it. For instance, one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical group. One cannot successfully
stage a sit-in if ones target audience simply thinks everyone is resting or if those doing the sitting have no complaints. Nor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one knows that it is a policy. In other words, contest is

meaningless if there is a lack of agreement or communication about what is being contested. Registers, demonstrators, and debaters must have some shared ideas about the subject and/or terms of their disagreements. The participants and the target of a sit-in must
share an understanding of the complaint at hand. And a demonstrators audience must know what is being resisted. In short, the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about what that

idea is and how one might go about intelligibly contesting it. contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony.

In other words,

5/19

Its also the most productive way to engage Mid East politics Heydemann, director Program on Philanthropy and Nonprofit Sector @ Social Science Research Council, frmr Prof Poli Sci Columbia, 2

(Steve, Defending the Discipline, Journal of Democracy Vol. 13, No. 3, Muse) Though Kramer's book is severely flawed, 2 the larger question remains: Is his diagnosis of the field accurate? Have we exaggerated the prospects for democratization and misread the state of politics in the Middle East? Are we guilty of uncritically applying
inappropriate theories and methods? Have we neglected what really matters in pursuit of theoretical novelty? The straightforward answer is that these perceptions of the field are misguided. When it

comes to the study of democratization and economic reformespecially the past 10 to 15 years' work on the political economy of regime formation and transitionthe field has been largely right. The persistence of authoritarianism, not the inevitability of democracy, has been the principal focus of research. The overwhelming sentiment among researchers has been not uncritical optimism about prospects for democratization but a cautious and critical skepticism, verging at times on frank pessimism. 3 Certainly, at the start of the
1990s scholars of the Middle East were anxious to explore the local effects of the changes then transforming the international system, including the possibility of political change from below, and with good reason. No one paying attention to events on the groundthe newfound interest among regimes circa 1990 in the rhetoric of pluralism, markets, and democracy; the growth of social movements around issues ranging from human rights to electoral reform to environmentalism; the increasingly visible signs of exhaustion among existing systems of rulecould have failed to note how the events of 1989 resonated across the Middle East, creating possibilities for change that had seemed quite remote only a few years earlier. Research on civil society, far less prominent in Middle East studies than in other

helped turn the attention of researchers to modes of politics that previously had been neglected. 4
fields, was one of several reactions to these new possibilities and Nonetheless, from the early 1990s on, the main focus of research on the politics of reform in the Middle East has been to explain why reforms have been so limited; how authoritarian regimes have managed to exploit the rhetoric of reform to reconfigure and renew their political [End Page 103] power; why it is that in the Middle East vibrant civil societies coexist with durable authoritarian regimes, while elsewhere such civil societies have been central to democratic transitions; and how regimes in the Middle East have managed to separate economic and political reform, processes that have often been seen as interdependent. Research has centered on such notions as selective

liberalization, defensive democratization, reform as a survival strategy, coalition management, and successful authoritarianism, and has explored whether
the stability of authoritarianism can be taken as evidence of Middle Eastern exceptionalism. 5 In fact, the most recent wave of research is on failed liberalization, the reversal of reform, and how the political openings that took place in a number of Middle Eastern states in the late 1980s and early 1990s were shut down by regimes that came to fear their consequences.

Moreover, research on economic and political reform in the Middle East has clearly benefited from the use of comparative theories and methods by regional specialists. Given the interdependence of economic reform and democratization in much of the
world, what accounts for the ability of regimes in the Middle East to liberalize their economies selectively without opening their political systems? Why has authoritarianism in the Middle East persisted despite the presence of virtually every factor that has been used to explain its collapse elsewhere, from failures of development to defeats in war? Since the massive use of coercion did not keep authoritarian regimes alive in Eastern Europe, Africa, or Latin America, how can we explain the persistence of such regimes in the Middle East simply by reference to their brutality? Does Tocqueville tell us anything relevant to this region? Does Islam make the Middle East exceptional, and if so, how? 6 How can we account for the absence or weakness of what might be called liberal Islam? These questions, which get to the

fundamental core of what matters about Middle Eastern politics today, are well represented within Middle East studies. Yet they cannot be answered by looking at
the Middle East in isolation. These questions require not simply introspection but critical engagement with the larger disciplines within which the applicable tools and methods are developed, challenged, and refined. Does such

attention to theory lead the field down esoteric byways, detached from the concerns of policy makers? That research has an obligation to serve foreign policy goals is a dubious proposition, but interaction between research and policy on questions of reform is evident, even if the two often pull in different directions. On the one
hand, U.S. policy favors stability in the short run, with little apparent regard for the longer-term costs of sustaining authoritarian regimes. Policy makers have tended to subordinate political reform to economic reform in the belief that markets will create the preconditions for political changeeventually. In other words, U.S. policy has

6/19

evolved to favor markets now, democracy later. Academic specialists, on the other handincluding [End Page 104] some with high-level government experiencetend to be skeptical if not critical of this approach, generally preferring more assertive U.S. support for democratization. 7 Nonetheless, the feasibility of promoting markets without also seeking
democracyof supporting what has become a shift from populist to partially market-based forms of authoritarianismis sadly consistent with the findings of the research literature. Moreover, this divergence between the

policy and research communities is not an indicator of academic failure but a reflection of policy makers' neglect , whether intentional or not, of a research literature that has been largely accurate in assessing the rise and decline of political liberalization in the Middle East during the course of the 1990s.

7/19 SPEED IS NOT ABUSIVE 1. RAPID DELIVERY ENHANCES ARGUMENT AND DEBATE The faster we speak, the more arguments we can make and the more evidence we can introduce. The time constraints mean that there is a direct and linear relationship between speed of speech and quantity of argument. You should prefer the system that maximizes argument because debate is meant to be a forum for argumentation. 2. RAPID DELIVERY REWARDS RESEARCH What is the point of cutting lots of cards if we never get to read them all? Allowing rapid delivery increases the amount of evidence we can use in a debate, which in turn increases the incentive to research for said evidence. Research is an important part of debates educational mandate. 3. LISTENERS CAN EASILY COPE WITH RAPID DEUVERY RATES Austin J. Freeley, Emeritus Professor of Communication at John Carroll University, ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE: CRITICAL THINKING FOR REASONED DECISION MAKING, 1990, p. 280. Experienced varsity NDT debaters operating in tournament situations on the national circuit are under great pressure to pack as much evidence and argument as possible into the time limits. Their delivery may often exceed 300 words per minute. Their opponents will strain to follow every word; the judge, usually an argumentation professor who may well have been there, understands the situation and is often willing to concentrate on the speech and record the arguments accurately on a flow sheet. The human mind is easily capable of absorbing far more than 300 words a minute, provided the listener is willing to concentrate and provided the delivery is intelligible. 4. TEACHING RAPID SPEAKING HELPS COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT AND ACADEMIC SKILLS. PSYCHOLOGY TODAY, The Talking Cure, September/October, 1992, p. 14 That raises the possibility that speech-training may be a short cut to achievement. Says Raine: If you can teach kids with speech disorders to speak faster, that should have wide-ranging benefits for other aspects of cognitive development and for their mastery of academic skills. 5. THE FASTER SOMEONE SPEAKS, THE BETTER THEIR SHORT TERM MEMORY PSYCHOLOGY TODAY, The Talking Cure, September/October, 1992, p. 14 If friends criticize you for talking too fast, at least they cant also accuse you of having a bad memory. Speech rate is a strong index of short-term memory span. The recent discovery that the two are linked in kids may be a special boon to those with speech disorders. Imagine that your short-term memory is a circular tape loop with 1.6 seconds of memory. Whatever you manage to repeat in that space is what you immediately recall. Therefore, the faster you can talk, the greater your short term memory, says Adrian Rains, Ph.D., a University of Southern California psychologist. The link has been established in adults for some time, Raine reports in Child Development. 6. DEBATE IS NOT MEANT TO TEACH PUBLIC SPEAKING Kent R. Colbert, University of the Pacific, CEDA YEARBOOK, 1991, p. 92 One could also speculate if competitive debating is an appropriate laboratory to hone certain public speaking skills. Competitive aspects, proof burdens, time constraints, and other competing argumentative skill requirements may make debating the wrong form for the development of speaking eloquence. However, this does not suggest it is counterproductive to other formats that do. No serious scholarly and objective data shows debating is counterproductive to speaking style. All serious research suggest that debaters are generally considered better communicators than those who do not debate.

8/19

EcoFacism is the only hope for planetary survival. Linkola, 2007 [Finnish Deep Ecologist, Philosopher http://www.penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/ecofascism/] "A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life are been organized on basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her...Just as only one out of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or mankind as a whole...In this time and this part of the World we are headlessly hanging on democracy and parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments of the mankind...In democratic countries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most...Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromizing control of the individual citizen." [ELLIPSES IN THE ORGINAL QUOTE]

Timeframe: We face extinction within the next 30 to 100 years unless we take radical steps to change. Linkola, 2006 [Environmental Philosopher; originally written, 2002 http://www.nazi.org.uk/political %20pdfs/PenttiLinkolaEssays.pdf] Mankind, the human species, seems to have reached its end. We are in the midst of ecocatastrophes, in the eye of the storm. No natural scientist or serious futurologist likely has promised more than 30-100 years of remaining time. A case of their own are the ordered researchers hired by the fanatical business world, who cry their screams as a small minority of world science. The human language does bend into as insane claims as possible: it is easy to say that the sun rises from the west and sets to the east.

9/19

Humanity must give up the pursuit of democratic freedoms and human rights or face extinction. The only question is whether we can make it less brutal. Beeson, 2010 [The coming of environmental authoritarianism Mark Beeson1 Professor at University of Western Australia Published in Environmental Politics, 19, (2), 2010, pp 276294] While evidence about the implications of environmental degradation and even global warming are increasingly uncontroversial, their possible political consequences are more contentious. Although some of the preceding analysis is necessarily speculative and inferential, the experiences of China and Southeast Asia highlight issues of unambiguously global significance. The central question that emerges from this discussion is whether democracy can be sustained in the regionor anywhere else for that mattergiven the unprecedented and unforgiving nature of the challenges we collectively face. Indeed, such is the urgency of the environmental crisis that some have arguedalarmingly persuasivelythat humanity will have to trade its liberty to live as it wishes in favour of a system where survival is paramount (Shearman and Smith 2007: 4). In such circumstances, forms of good authoritarianism, in which environmentally unsustainable forms of behavior are simply forbidden, may become not only justifiable, but essential for the survival of humanityin anything approaching a civilized form, at least. Objections by thse with project against racism to the speiciest kritik are merely expressing their own specieism. Randomska, 2010 [From Feminism to Speciesism and Back Again or How We Are Becoming and How We Collaborate. Marietta Radomska ]
If we take into account postcolonial or feminist theory (and movements) for instance, they precisely point out how those positioned as "others" of the "reasonable human subject" (Western, white, male, capital-owning) have been always defined as closer to nature and animals (or as animals). Although various gestures of racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination do take place both in theory (academia) and in practice (everyday life), the above-mentioned emancipation movements claims are quite obvious. Nevertheless, the enormous amount of suffering and oppression of animals go almost unheard. They just form a part of "normal" landscape. Moreover, any attempt of comparison or analogy between animal suffering e.g. in slaughterhouses to black slavery or Holocaust usually awaken indignation or at least evoke some sort of protest, also from those who themselves were fighting against dualist logic labelling them as the "Others" of the human subject. Actually, such objections appear to be only one more expression of speciesism.

Abandoning anthropocentric ontologies shatters neoliberal domination. Randomska, 2010 [From Feminism to Speciesism and Back Again or How We Are Becoming and How We Collaborate. Marietta Radomska ] Now your question probably is: what is this whole, rather abstract analysis for? As I mentioned before, an account of ontology always forms the basis for ethics, politics, the way we

10/19

understand the world and how we act. Hence, once we get rid of the anthropocentric aberration at a theoretical level, we will be able to think and act in a different way. The issues of cruelty to animals, animal suffering and animal rights are in fact utterly entangled in the problems of the devastation of natural resources and exploitation (in general), as well as the logic of profit. They are intertwined, implicated in each other. Acknowledging this and abandoning anthropocentric constraints may open the way to a specific politics of alliances. Within such a politics various progressive and emancipatory social movements will have to include animal welfare (and vegetarianism/veganism) issues in their agendas, and animal rights activists will have to eliminate any sexiest, racist or other discriminatory traces that may appear in their movements. It is only through such alliances and collaboration in the long term that a true struggle for social justice may take place. Nonetheless, I would like to proceed now to the question how artists deal with the obstacles of speciesism and anthropocentrism, namely, to the solutions they propose.

11/19 Crunch Coming Malthus was right about food scarcity Hurst, feature writer for the Toronto Star, 4-12-08 [Lynda, The Coming hunger, http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/413769] The warning bells are ringing, furiously. This week, food riots paralyzed Haiti, with angry marchers outside the president's palace shouting "We are hungry!" Five people were killed in the chaos. In Egypt, a 15-yearold boy was shot and killed this week in two days of violence over food shortages. Last month, a two-week protest at government-subsidized bakeries ended with the deaths of 10 Egyptians in clashes with police. Rice
is the staple food of 4 billion people. But the prices for it, along with corn, wheat and other basics, has surged by 40 per cent to 80 per cent in the last three years and caused panicked uprisings in some of the poorest countries on Earth, from Cameroon to Bolivia. The situation has deteriorated so swiftly that some experts predict the effects of a global food crisis are going to bite more quickly than climate change. According to the World Bank, 33 countries are now vulnerable to social unrest and political instability because of food insecurity and that has implications for all the rest. Major rice producers like China, Cambodia and Vietnam are already battening down, curbing exports to ensure supplies for their own populations. The Philippines, whose population has grown from 60 million to almost 90 million in 17 years, is warning rice hoarders they'll be charged with economic sabotage. Why is it happening? Was Malthus right when he said the world would eventually be too populated to feed itself? The United Nations already

provides food for 73 million people in 78 countries worldwide. But the planet is getting hungrier. At least 4 million more people are being added to the list, most of them living in high-density, Third World cities. The new face of hunger and thirst is overwhelmingly urban. It takes 1,000 tonnes of water to produce one tonne of food, but water scarcity is affecting supplies. And, as Lester Brown, president of Earth Policy Institute in Washington, has cautioned: "A future of water shortages will be a future of food shortages." The current crisis was ignited by a number of elements coming together in deadly tandem. Analysts say the most important one the jump in global fuel prices has triggered a chain reaction in the entire food-production system, from seed planting right through to the delivery process. The world has been down this road before, of course.
In 1973-74, OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) quadrupled the world price of oil, resulting in spiralling food prices and distribution snarls. The disaster led to a World Food Summit in 1976, but nothing was done to prevent it happening again. Today's

crisis is even worse because biofuels, a factor unanticipated in the mid-'70s, has been added to the mix, says David Bell, emeritus professor of environmental studies at York University. "A false environmental sensibility has led to a push on biofuel production and corn is the product of choice," he says. "There's been a significant diversion of crops away from food use." The corn needed to produce ethanol fuel has to be grown somewhere
and when land available for food farming is converted, food prices are pushed up: "That's what's tripped off the food riots this time." And the environmental benefits of corn fuel, he scathingly adds, are "completely illusory." Throw in the new and exploding

demand for meat in economically booming China and India and even more land is being converted for cattle, and the feeding thereof. Climate change is also making its toxic contribution. Major droughts have hit wheat-producing
nations such as Australia and Ukraine, leading to a 30-year low in the world's wheat inventories. This week, John Holmes, the UN's top humanitarian and emergency relief co-ordinator, warned that the number of global "extreme weather" disasters has doubled in the past two decades to 400 a year. What's building in consequence of all these factors, he said, is a "perfect storm." "The security implications should not be underestimated ...Current food price trends are likely to increase sharply both the incidence and

depth of food insecurity. In other words, this week's food riots may be just a foreshadowing of what looms ahead in the not-so-distant future. It took all of human history for the world to reach a population of 2.5 billion in 1950. Half a century later, it's risen to more than 6.5 billion. By 2030, it's expected to reach 8.2 billion, and by 2050, a staggering 9 to 12 billion. Can the world sustain that number of people? A UN report says we are already living beyond the planet's means just as Thomas Malthus warned could occur. The early 19th-century British demographer and political economist believed population growth was exponential and man's "struggle for existence" eventually would outstrip Earth's capacity to sustain it. Malthus's thinking
influenced Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory, but it also led to nightmare scenarios. In 1968, American biologist Paul Ehrlich notoriously predicted that by the 1980s, hundreds of millions would die because of overpopulation and subsequent lack of food. It didn't happen. Not only did Ehrlich take a drubbing, but Malthus's theory did, as well. Critics have continually insisted that Malthus was too pessimistic. Humans would always find alternatives to resources that have been exhausted, they say, develop new technologies to improve crop yield. But how far, asks David Bell, can substitution go? After having dismissed Malthus, people are starting to talk

about him again, he says. "His warning of a crash as a possible outcome may not be that far wrong. Ultimately, more mouths to feed is going to exacerbate political pressures. There will be more failed societies." Today, projections are that, by 2030, global agriculture/agribusiness will have to double its output and use less water to do it. Fish as a food source? Every fishery in the world is expected to have collapsed within 25 to 50 years, says Bell.

12/19 We are exceeding our carrying capacity and resources Fairfax, 2K7 [Population pressure takes Earth to its limits, 10-26-2007, http://enviro.org.au/enewsdescription.asp?id=833] THE most authoritative scientific report on the planet's health has found water, land, air, plants, animals and fish stocks are all in "inexorable decline" as 2007 became the first year in human history when most of the world's population lived in cities. The United Nations' Global Environment Outlook-4 report, released in New York, reveals a scale of unprecedented ecological damage, with more than 2 million people possibly dying prematurely of air pollution and close to 2 billion likely to suffer absolute water scarcity by 2025. Put bluntly, the report warns that the 6.75 billion world population, "has reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available". And it says climate change, the collapse of fish stocks and the extinction of species "may threaten humanity's very survival". Launching the report, the head of the UN's Environment Program, Achim Steiner, warned that, "without an accelerated effort to reform the way we collectively do business on planet earth, we will shortly be in trouble, if indeed we are not already". Crunch coming increasing population and water scarcity prove Sadoff, Kemper, & Grey, World Bank Staff, 7-7-06 [Claudia, Karin, David, Calming Global Waters: Managing a Finite Resource in a Growing World, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTABOUTUS/Resources/Water.pdf] But today a new and conflicting set of challenges has arisen: global food security must be achieved against a backdrop of growing populations, increasing water scarcity, and rising environmental concerns. Reforms are needed to promote the intensification of irrigated agriculture, through greater participation by farmers in irrigation management and in investments to modernize and rehabilitate existing infrastructure. In the next 25 years, 90 percent of the increase in food production will have to come from land already under cultivation. Meanwhile the need for new water supply for urban and industrial uses and for environmental protection will increasingly take both water and land away from irrigated areas. All of this means that the productivity of the remaining irrigated land will have to double. Resource scarcity will collapse modern government order into world wars Hanson, civil engineer from Hawaii, a retired systems analyst, 2K8 [Jay, A BASIC IDEA OF HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS, 6-24-2008, http://www.warsocialism.com/democratic.htm] Our Founders saw the common good as the sum of individual goods which could be measured by spending [4] the more, the better. Obviously, now that we are entering a decades-long period of declining global economic activity (in the physical sense not GDP), all of our Founders core assumptions are known to be wrong BIOPHYSICAL LAWS Thermodynamic laws, evolution theory, and modern genetic sciences were unknown by our Founders. Today, these laws and sciences signal the end of our form of government. The first law of thermodynamics (conservation law) states that there can be no creation of matter/energy. This means that the economy is totally dependent upon natural resources for everything. The German physicist Helmholtz and the British physicist Lord Kelvin had explained the principle by the middle of the 19th century.The second law of thermodynamics (entropy law) tells us that energy is wasted in all economic activity. In 1824, the French physicist Sadi Carnot formulated the second laws concepts while
working on heat engines. Lord Kelvin and the German physicist Clausius eventually formalized Carnots concepts as the second law of thermodynamics.Our government was designed to require more-and-more energy (endless economic growth) to solve social problems, but the thermodynamic laws described above limit the available energy. Energy resources must produce more energy than they consume, otherwise they are called sinks (this is known as the net energy principle). In other words, if it costs morethan-one-barrel-of-oil to produce one-barrel-of-oil, then that barrel will never be produced the money price of oil is irrelevant! Thus, the net energy principle places strict limits (in the physical sense) on our governments ability to solve social problems. Although bankers can print money, they can not print energy! Biologists have found that our genes predispose us to act in certain ways under certain

environments. This explains why history repeats itself and why humans have engaged in war after war throughout history: from time-to-time an environment emerges when inclusive fitness[5] is served by attacking your neighbor and stealing his resources. [6] Since our government was designed to require ever-growing energy resources, but energy resources are strictly limited by thermodynamic laws, sooner-or-later our government will collapse into another orgy of world wars. Its just a matter of time... ELECTIONS DONT MATTER! WHAT MATTERS
ARE LOBBYISTS! A genetic process called reciprocal altruism guarantees that elected officials and their cronies will nearly always come

13/19
around to agree with the suggestions of lobbyists. Its a natural, automatic and subconscious process. Only a sociopath is immune. Unfortunately, no lobbyists represent the common interest. Our Founders assumed that the common interest was the sum of individual interests. Our Founders based our system on the ideas of the French Physiocrats,[7] which were formulated before the laws of thermodynamics were understood. LOCAL GOVERNMENT: No public advocate! Local government policy begins in corporate boardrooms too, but additional structural aspects of our political system guarantee that local communities are powerless to stop the rich from converting local neighborhoods into cash. Our present system of government is designed so elected and appointed officials serve as BOTH public advocate and judge. I can tell you from personal experience that its impossible. On the one hand, we are expected to evaluate the impacts of complex economic proposals; on the other hand, we are supposed to be non-professionals just plain folks. The result is that commissioners cant personally evaluate the proposals in front of them, nor do they get objective opinions or studies from a public advocate (the governments professional planners are known to NOT represent the public interest in fact, commissioners are supposed to act as a watchdog on government). Yes, commissioners DO hear from a few citizens of unknown motivation and expertise who are able to take a day off work to testify. But since these individuals do not bring studies (with explicitly-stated assumptions, etc.), its always unclear how much weight to give to their testimony. Moreover, commissioners are acutely aware of their impossible double role of judge AND advocate, bend over backwards to give the appearance of objectivity, and thereby nearly-always give the benefit of the doubt to the developer. A good analogy for our present system is a trial composed of a defendant (the public), a prosecutor (the developer), and a judge (elected officials or commissioners.) The public has NO professional advocate and there is no trial by jury. Moreover, the judge frequently accepts gifts from and takes the advice of the prosecutor (the developers lobbyists). No one would argue that the defendant could ever get a fair trial with a legal system like this! Our Founders assumed that since economic growth was always the best way to solve social problems, the public didnt need a professional advocate to ever question special interests. The point here is that our government was specifically designed to rely on perpetual economic growth to solve social problems and maintain public order. The political system is self-reinforcing and literally out of human control. When economic growth becomes

impossible as thermodynamics tells us it must then our present form of government becomes impossible too. Authoritarianism is inevitable the government needs to ensure control of resources that are key to the military Klare, five college prof of peace & world security studies & director of Peace and World Security Studies, 2008 [Michael, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet, p 239] A new Cold War atmosphere would continue the trend toward state supervision of all fields related to energy exploration, procurement, transportation, and distribution. Because energy and other raw materials are needed to sustain critical industries and the military establishment, scarcity might well legitimize greater state intervention in the name of national security or even national surivival. The fact that oil is regarded as strategic commodity, essential for the operation of military forces, will justify government rationing and the diversion of available supplies from civilian to military use. American democracy is vulnerable in the Status Quo Authoritarianism inevitable Giroux, American cultural critic, 2K6 [Henry A., The New Authoritarianism in the United States, 1-32006, Dissident Voice, http://dissidentvoice.org/Jan06/Giroux03.htm]
Recent revelations in the New York Times about the Bush administrations decision to allow the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without first obtaining warrants, the Washington Post disclosure of the chain of secret CIA torture prisons around the world, and the ongoing stories about widespread abuse and torture in Iraq and Afghanistan are just some of the elements in the popular press that point to a growing authoritarianism in American life. The government, as many notable and courageous critics ranging from Seymour M. Hersh to Gore Vidal and Robert Kennedy Jr. have pointed out, is now in the hands of extremists who have shredded civil liberties, lied to the

American public to legitimate sending young American troops to Iraq, alienated most of the international community with a blatant exercise of arrogant power, tarnished the highest offices of government with unsavory corporate alliances, used political power to unabashedly pursue legislative polices that favor the rich and punish the poor, and disabled those public spheres not governed by the logic of the market. Closer to home, a silent war is being waged
against poor young people and people of color who are either being warehoused in substandard schools or incarcerated at alarming rates. Academic freedom is increasingly under attack, homophobia has become the poster-ideology of the Republican Party, war and warriors have become the most endearing models of national greatness, and a full-fledged assault on womens reproductive rights is being championed by Bushs evangelical supporters -- most evident in Bushs recent Supreme Court appointment and nominee. While people of color, the poor, youth, the middle class, the elderly, gays, and women are being attacked, the current administration is supporting a campaign to collapse the boundaries between the church and state and even liberal critics such as Frank Rich believe that the U.S. is on the verge of becoming a fundamentalist theocracy. [1] A number of powerful anti-democratic tendencies now threaten American democracy. The

first is a market fundamentalism that not only trivializes democratic values and public concerns, but also enshrines a rabid individualism, an all-embracing quest for profits, and a Social Darwinism in which misfortune is seen as a weakness and the Hobbesian rule of a war of all against all replaces any vestige of shared responsibilities or compassion for others. Within neoliberal ideology, the market becomes the template for organizing the rest of society. Everybody is now a customer or client, and every relationship is ultimately judged in bottom-line, cost-effective terms. Freedom is no longer about equality, social justice, or the public welfare, but about the trade in goods, financial capital, and commodities. The logic of capital trumps democratic sovereignty, low intensity warfare at home chips away at democratic freedoms and high

14/19 intensity warfare abroad delivers democracy with bombs, tanks, and chemical warfare. The cost abroad is massive human suffering and death, and at home, as Paul Krugman points out, The hijacking of public policy by private interests parallels
the downward spiral in governance. [2] With the rise of market fundamentalism, economics is accorded more respect than politics; the citizen has been reduced to a consumer -- the buying and selling of goods is all that seems to matter. Even children are now targeted as a constituency from which to make money, reduced to commodities, sexualized in endless advertisements, and shamelessly treated as a market for huge profits. Market fundamentalism not only makes time a burden for those without health insurance, child care, a decent job, and adequate social services, it also commercializes and privatizes public spaces, undermining not only the idea of citizenship but also those very spaces (schools, media, etc.) needed to make it a vigorous and engaged force for a substantive democracy. Under such circumstances, hope is

foreclosed, and it becomes difficult either to imagine a life beyond capitalism or to believe in a politics that takes democracy seriously. Authoritarianism is inevitable, even in the US Klare, five college prof of peace & world security studies & director of Peace and World Security Studies, 2008 [Michael, Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet, p 241-242] Here, too, a likely result will be an increase in state oversight. At the very least, governments will come under immense pressure from domestic constituencies to satisfy energy demands by any means necessary. Meeting
demand was, in fact, the stated objective of the National Energy Policy adopted by the Bush administration in May 2001 a time when the nation was already suffering from an energy crisis brought about by shortages of oil, natural gas, and electricity. To ensure a

steady supply of affordable energy for Americas homes and businesses and industries- the policys ultimate goal the president advocated the removal of existing restrictions on oil and gas drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; along with increased government subsidies for Big Oil, King Coal, and the nuclear power industry; intensified efforts to gain access to overseas oil and gas deposits; and greater reliance on arms transfers and military aid to cement U.S. ties with key suppliers abroad.3 The adoption of statist measures of this sort will occur at the expense of both corporate and societal autonomy. Greater governmental intervention in the procurement and distribution of oil and natural gas will usurp powers long enjoyed by the major energy firms (though it is worth recalling that, in many parts of the world, the state often played a key role in creating or nurturing giant firms such as BP, Total, and Eni, which are now mostly independent actors). Any increase in state oversight of energy affairs will undermine basic democratic rights and the prerogatives of local authorities. In general, the lower the level at which a decision is made about the design or location of a drilling rig, refinery, reactor, dam or power plant, the greater the opportunity for public scrutiny of, and participation in, plans for such facilities; once control shifts to central state authorities, these opportunities largely disappear. Even in the United States, where suspicion where suspicion of and hostility toward federal authority remains strong, one can see a trend toward reduced local control over energy-related matters. A key turning point may have been the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which gave the Department of Energy increased authority over the siting of regasification facilities and interstate electric
transmission lines major installations whose construction can alter the character of a community and expose it to new hazards. Previously, control over the placement of such facilities was largely exercised by state, county, and municipal authorities; under the new law, these powers will be wielded by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Russia, Isreal, and the US are just few examples of the Authoritarian push now Starobin, contributing editor of The Atlantic and a staff correspondent for National Journal, 2K4 [Paul, Dawn of the Daddy State, The Agenda, June 2004, Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200406/starobin] An authoritarian push is often seen as coming from above, forced on an unsuspecting public by would-be autocrats. But today's global trend toward what might be called the Daddy State is propelled by the anxious demands of majority blocs of citizens. The Russians recently re-elected Vladimir Putin, a former KGB colonel, with 71 percent of the vote, handing him a mandate to continue his crackdown on Chechen terrorists. The Israelis are demanding the Fenceenvisioned as a sniper-patrolled, electrified national barrier aimed at keeping out Palestinian suicide bombers. Not only do Americans broadly support Bush's Patriot Act, but womenwho worry more than men do that they or someone close to them will fall victim to terrorismtend to view the measure as not tough enough, according to a recent Gallup poll. Europeans are demanding closer policing of their rapidly growing Muslim minority, which now stands at 15 million in the EU. In short, we are at the dawn of a popularly sanctioned movement toward greater authoritarianism in the domain of what is now fashionably called "homeland security." As Thomas Hobbes explained in his mid-seventeenth-century treatise Leviathan (a work that can be read as a primer on homeland security), there is no real contradiction in the idea of authoritarianism as a choice. In a proverbial state of nature, man willingly gives up some portion of his liberty to a sovereign as the only conceivable protector of his life and property. During times of relative quiet and

15/19 prosperity it is easy to forget that this sort of bargain existsbut in times of danger, woe to the sovereign that neglects its duty to protect.

16/19 Even the right to food is nonsense in the real world maintaining rights would justify starvation Hardin, Biological Sciences @ UC Santa Barbara, 2006 [Garrett, Biological Sciences, Originally written 1980, Limited World, Limited Rights, http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_limited_world_limited_rights.html] Probably no right now claimed is so revolutionary in its consequences-and, I shall argue, so indefensible-as the right to food. On 23 March 1976 an organization called Bread for the World presented the following statement to the American Congress: "We believe that every man, woman and child on earth has the right to a nutritionally adequate diet. This right is not ours to give or take away. It is fundamental and derives from the right to life itself. The Declaration of Independence identifies the right to life as an unalienable human right coming from God who has created all persons equal. Without the food to sustain life, that right is meaningless." This is lovely rhetoric, but it is ecological nonsense. In a limited world, indefinitely continued exponential growth, if food is equally shared, will lead ultimately to starvation and misery for all and "ultimately" is not far off. Every year another 90 million mouths clamor for food-another Egypt and Vietnam, as it were. The World Health Organization says that 800 million persons are now malnourished. The advances in agricultural productivity, most conspicuous in the already advanced countries, give little promise of decreasing the number of malnourished, in either absolute numbers or relative to the total global population. Unrestricted Rights would destroy life they must be limited Hardin, Biological Sciences @ UC Santa Barbara, 1980 [Garret, Limited World, Limited Rights, Commentaries: Rights and Liberties, Society, http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_limited_world_limited_rights.html] We do not keep our attention focused long enough on the problem of chronic misery to see that simultaneously asserting the right to food and the right to breed insures the perpetuation and increase of need. Every right must be evaluated in the network of all rights claimed and the environment in which these rights are exercised. When the human population was periodically decimated by such crowd diseases as cholera, typhoid, plague and smallpox, claiming both the right to breed and to be fed may have done no long-term harm (though such double claims were seldom made in those days). But the new limit to growth-sheer wantcreated by substantially eliminating the old limits (disease, principally) turns the right to food and the right to breed into a suicidal combination. If these two rights have a translegal existence if to use the language of earlier days, they are God-given rights then we must bitterly conclude that God is bent on the utter destruction of civilization, that He must intend to reduce human existence to the level of the Iks, so movingly described by Colin Turnbull. Saying that both such translegal rights exist in unqualified, unquantified form is fatalism of the most extreme sort. On the other hand, if we hold that every right, natural" or not, must be evaluated in the total system of rights operating in a world that is limited, we must inevitably conclude that no right can be presumed to be absolute, that the effect of each right on the suppliers as well as on the demanders must be determined before we can ascertain the quantity of right that is admissible. From here on out, ours is a limited world. Rights must also be limited. The greater the population, the more limited the per capita supply of all goods; hence the greater must be the limitation on individual rights. At its heart, this is the political meaning of the population problem. Rights cut both ways and dont assume the ecological crisis its not a valuable framework given the worlds state Hardin, Biological Sciences @ UC Santa Barbara, 2006 [Garrett, Biological Sciences, Originally written 1980, Limited World, Limited Rights, http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_limited_world_limited_rights.html] One person's right is, then, a demand upon others. Pufendorf follows his definition with a two-word prcis: Vocabuli ambiguitas. Rights are ambiguous words, literally "words that drive both ways." This fact is conveniently neglected by those who fight most vigorously to establish new legal rights on the basis of supposed translegal rights. The desirability of the right to the person benefited may be admitted by all; but before acquiescing in the establishment of a new legal right, we need to examine its drive in the other direction, in the demands it makes on those who must pay the cost of the right. The highly individualistic view implicit in rights as currently conceived is not adequate for a world of more than four billion human beings. Our world is not the world of Robinson Crusoe or even of Daniel Boone. It is preeminently a social world, and social relationships are fantastically complicated and subtle. Whenever we contemplate intervening in an existing social system, we must be acutely aware that we can

17/19 never do merely one thing. Quantities matter. A right that may be bearable and even beneficial at one level of population, may be unbearable or disastrous at another. Situation ethics is the only ethics that works. The Affs Short term goals of social reform will inevitably be counterproductive and alter the world for the worse Hardin, Biological Sciences @ UC Santa Barbara, 1980 (Garret, An Ecolate View of the Human Predicament, http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_ecolate_view_human_predicament.html) The possibility of causing more harm than good seldom enters the mind of an international intervener. The intervener in Egypt-the U.S.S.R., as it happened, but it would have been the U.S., had we not earlier had a falling out with Nasser-no doubt viewed the goal as one of working toward a maximum of electricity production, or irrigation water (or both). The goal of maximizing a single variable is woven into the fabric of engineering, and it has long seemed an innocent tool. The political scientist William Ophuls, however, calls on us to reexamine this assumption in terms of a bit of modern folk wisdom that has been called Ophuls' Axiom: Nature abhors a maximum.22 Survival of any system depends on a subtle and incompletely understood balance of many variables. Maximizing one is almost sure to alter the balance in an unfavorable way. So complex is every natural system that the cascade of consequences started by an ill-advised maximization of a single variable may take years, or even generations, to work itself out. This is the reason why proponents of intervention find it so easy to dose their eyes to the consequences of their meddling. The goals of energy maximization, optimum capital utilization, personal utility maximalization, and optimal resource depletion all become suspect under Ophuls' Axiom. In the ecolate view of the world, time has no stop: every well meant proposal must be challenged by the question, "And then what?" Refusal to meet this challenge is the commonest cause of the failure of social reforms. Slum clearance, urban redevelopment, and most welfare programs have been generally counterproductive of their goals because their proponents, largely literate and not ecolate in their thinking, did not subject their plans to the acid test of "And then what?" This selfishness makes all impacts inevitable weigh every right of the affirmative against extinction Ophuls, member of the U.S. Foreign Service and has taught political science at Northwestern University. He is the author of Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity, which won the International Studies Associations Sprout Prize and the American Political Science Associations Kammerer Award, 1997 [William, Requiem for Modern Politics] In the end, therefore, not only did the Enlightenment paradigm of politics fail to achieve many of its avowed goals-for example, equality (at least to the extent hoped)--but it also inflicted a wanton destruction on the world, becoming thereby both its own worst enemy and the author of new forms and possibilities of tyranny undreamt of by ancient despots. Everything that does not work, all that we hate and fear about the modern way of life, is the logical or even foreordained consequence of the basic principles we have chosen to embrace. Explosive population growth, widespread habitat destruction, disastrous pollution, and every other aspect of ecological devastation; increasing crime and violence, runaway addictions of every kind, the neglect or abuse of children, and every other form of social breakdown; antinomianism, nihilism, millenarianism, and every other variety of ideological madness; hyperpluralism, factionalism, administrative despotism, and every other manifestation of democratic decay; weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, the structural poverty of underdevelopment, and many other global pathologies--all are deeply rooted in Hobbesian politics, whose basic principles set up a vicious circle of power seeking and self-destruction. In other words, the most intractable problems of our age are due not to human nature itself but, instead, to the way in which the Enlightenment in general and Hobbesian politics in particular have encouraged the worst tendencies of human nature to flourish in the modern era.

18/19 Overpopulation kills any effort to sustain the world, destroying biodiversity, causing war, and ensuring extinction authoritarian child policies would be a necessary check Hedges, Senior fellow at The Nation Institute and a Lecturer in the Council of the Humanities and the Anschutz Distinguished Fellow at Princeton University, 2/9/09 (Chris, We Are Breeding Ourselves to Extinction, http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php/20090309091429962) All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our ecosystem will be useless if we do not cut population growth. By 2050, if we continue to reproduce at the current rate, the planet will have between 8 billion and 10 billion people, according to a recent U.N. forecast. This is a 50 percent increase. And yet government-commissioned reviews, such as the Stern report in Britain, do not mention the word population. Books and documentaries that deal with the climate crisis, including Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," fail to discuss the danger of population growth. This omission is odd, given that a doubling in population, even if we cut back on the use of fossil fuels, shut down all our coal-burning power plants and build seas of wind turbines, will plunge us into an age of extinction and desolation unseen since the end of the Mesozoic era, 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs disappeared. We are experiencing an accelerated obliteration of the planet's life-forms -- an estimated 8,760 species die off per year -- because, simply put, there are too many people. Most of these extinctions are the direct result of the expanding need for energy, housing, food and other resources. The Yangtze River dolphin, Atlantic gray whale, West African black rhino, Merriam's elk, California grizzly bear, silver trout, blue pike and dusky seaside sparrow are all victims of human overpopulation. Population growth, as E.O. Wilson says, is "the monster on the land." Species are vanishing at a rate of a hundred to a thousand times faster than they did before the arrival of humans. If the current rate of extinction continues, Homo sapiens will be one of the few life-forms left on the planet, its members scrambling violently among themselves for water, food, fossil fuels and perhaps air until they too disappear. Humanity, Wilson says, is leaving the Cenozoic, the age of mammals, and entering the Eremozoic -- the era of solitude. As long as the Earth is viewed as the personal property of the human race, a belief embraced by everyone from born-again Christians to Marxists to free-market economists, we are destined to soon inhabit a biological wasteland. The populations in industrialized nations maintain their lifestyles because they have the military and economic power to consume a disproportionate share of the world's resources. The United States alone gobbles up about 25 percent of the oil produced in the world each year. These nations view their stable or even zero growth birthrates as sufficient. It has been left to developing countries to cope with the emergent population crisis. India, Egypt, South Africa, Iran, Indonesia, Cuba and China, whose one-child policy has prevented the addition of 400 million people, have all tried to institute population control measures. But on most of the planet, population growth is exploding. The U.N. estimates that 200 million women worldwide do not have access to contraception. The population of the Persian Gulf states, along with the Israelioccupied territories, will double in two decades, a rise that will ominously coincide with precipitous peak oil declines. The overpopulated regions of the globe will ravage their local environments, cutting down rainforests and the few remaining wilderness areas, in a desperate bid to grow food. And the depletion and destruction of resources will eventually create an overpopulation problem in industrialized nations as well. The resources that industrialized nations consider their birthright will become harder and more expensive to obtain. Rising water levels on coastlines, which may submerge coastal nations such as Bangladesh, will disrupt agriculture and displace millions, who will attempt to flee to areas on the planet where life is still possible. The rising temperatures and droughts have already begun to destroy crop lands in Africa, Australia, Texas and California. The effects of this devastation will first be felt in places like Bangladesh, but will soon spread within our borders. Footprint data suggests that, based on current lifestyles, the sustainable population of the United Kingdom-the number of people the country could feed, fuel and support from its own biological capacity-is about 18 million. This means that in an age of extreme scarcity, some 43 million people in Great Britain would not be able to survive. Overpopulation will become a serious threat to the viability of many industrialized states the instant the cheap consumption of the world's resources can no longer be maintained. This moment may be closer than we think. A world where 8 billion to 10 billion people are competing for diminishing resources will not be peaceful. The industrialized nations will, as we have done in Iraq, turn to their militaries to ensure a steady supply of fossil fuels, minerals and other nonrenewable resources in the vain effort to sustain a lifestyle that will, in the end, be unsustainable. The collapse of industrial farming, which is made possible only with cheap oil, will lead to an increase in famine, disease and starvation. And the reaction of those on the bottom will be the low-tech tactic of terrorism and war. Perhaps the chaos and bloodshed will be so massive that overpopulation will be solved through violence, but this is hardly a comfort.

19/19 Overpopulation outweighs and turns case it results in warming, war, poverty, and famine only authoritarian control can stop it Associated Content, 9-21-06(Steven Halverson, AC, Overpopulation: Should Having a Child Require a Permit? http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/61009/overpopulation_should_having_a_child_pg2_pg2.html? cat=37) In America a permit is required to own a gun, a business, to drive an automobile, to hunt game, and to fish. Americans live with almost no hostility to these limitations because these permits are used to protect the population from severe harm. Gun permits are intact to reduce crime, drivers licenses protect the roads from a state of metal anarchy, fishing and hunting permits protect other species, like the American Eagle, which are in danger of total extinction. Permits can and have been used as a solution (sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding) for large and complex problems, on a national and more importantly global level. The world faces one of its most potentially disastrous crises ever: overpopulation. The rate of growth is staggering, the severe consequences of this growth at times unimaginable. The roots of the problem lie mainly with two phenomenons: lowering mortality rates, and rising and even stable birth rates. Population grows at an exponential rate, and with these two roots of population growth compounded together, the problem becomes even more immense. If the current trend isnt altered, the human race is surely on a track of self-destruction. Famine, water shortages, uncontrollable global warming, specie extinction, energy crises, more traffic, are only a few of the consequences of overpopulation. From these consequences more problems arise: crime from frustration of traffic and famine, war from water shortages, more famine from specie extinction, poverty, the list of possibilities go on forever as well as the constant lingering of devastating worldwide surprise. It is safe to say that overpopulation is a gigantic danger to all the nation-states in the world.