GH D Spark Answers

SDI 2006
GHD
1
AT: Spark
AT: Spark/Wipeout
Spark
Spark 2AC General
Spark 2AC Extinction
Spark 2AC Escalation
Spark 2AC Firebreak
Spark 2AC No Mindset Shift
Spark 2AC Immoral
Spark 2AC Space
Spark 2AC Bioweapons
Spark 2AC Environment
Spark 2AC Ozone
Spark 2AC Monoculture
Spark 2AC Disease
Ext Extinction
Ext Extinction AT: Southern Hemisphere
Ext Extinction AT: Hiroshima/Nagasaki
Ext Extinction AT: Shelters
Ext Escalation
Ext No Mindset Shift
Ext Space
Ext Disease
Ext Ozone
Ext Environment
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19-20
21
22
23
24-25
Wipeout
Wipeout 2AC General
Wipeout 2AC Overpop
Wipeout 2AC Antimatter/Black Holes
Wipeout 2AC A-Life
Wipeout 2AC Nanotech
Wipeout 2AC Aliens
Wipeout 2AC Strangelets
Wipeout 2AC Time Travel
Wipeout 2AC Quantum Vacuum/Zero-Point Energy
Wipeout 2AC Maya
Ext Infinite Responsibility
Ext Antimatter/Black Holes
Ext A-Life
Ext Nanotech
Ext Aliens
Ext Quantum Vacuum/Zero-Point Energy
26-28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
SDI 2006
GHD
2
AT: Spark
Spark 2AC General

( ) Aff isnt key
a) Other limited nuclear wars are inevitable
< Insert Favorite Scenario >
b) Well still have a unique advantage Our wars are worse, and well have non-nuclear
war based add-ons
( ) You should default aff if we win any risk nuclear war causes extinction, kills a lot of
people, or fails to spark a mindset shift, you shouldnt be willing to intentionally let billions
die for a risk of stopping their scenarios.
( ) Their authors are crazy this is self-evident, but you should be willing to call out their
authors as crackpots with no qualifications or warrants. Just because Exit Mundi said it
doesnt make it true
SDI 2006
GHD
3
AT: Spark
Spark 2AC Extinction

( ) Nuclear war causes extinction
George M Woodwell, PhD From Duke, Director of the Ecosystems center at the Marine Biological Laboratory at
Woods Hole Mass. , Nuclear Winter, Deterrence, and the Prevention of Nuclear War, Edited by Sederberg, 1986 p.
20
The primary concern, I suppose, is the direct effects on people. Many of the same uncertainties that apply to
the induction of climatic changes apply as well to inferences about human mortality. The size and characters
of the war are important: Are cities the targets? The analyses from previous studies range widely up to the
recent WHO analysis that suggests a total mortality of 1.1 billion for a 10,000 MT war. No estimates in this
study dealt with the effects of a climatic crisis. Systematic efforts at estimating the additional mortality due to
dark and prolonged cold in the weeks following such a war are beyond the limits of this discussion and, when
developed, any estimates will prove as tenuous as virtually all other assumptions concerning the effects of a
hypothetical war. Survivors of the immediate effects of the weapons will emerge into a radioactive
environment that is likely to be perpetually dark and frozen with 10-20C or more of frost. On first
analysis it would seem difficult to exaggerate the difficulties of accumulating the resources required for
survival under those conditions. All supplies of fresh water would be frozen. Plants and animals, left
unprotected, would be frozen and dead. Agriculture would be paralyzed transportation, normal
communications of all types, sources of fuel, power supplies, and the normal machinery of govemment,
including normal conventions established in law or in manners will have been destroyed or suspended: under
those circumstances mere survival will be a major challenge and it is well within the realm of probability
that few or none would survive in areas as large as continents, possibly in the northern hemisphere itself.
( ) We dont need to win escalation -- five nuclear weapons destroy the planet
The Guardian, July 14, 1993
But we understand, or ought to understand, some things better now that the East-West confrontation is no
more, and our knowledge of ecology and the fragility of planetary systems has advanced One is that the
nuclear war fighting scenarios were not just optimistic but totally ludicrous We now know or ought to know
and that we includes Arabs, Iranians. South Asians, Chinese, and Koreans as well as Westerners that one
nuclear weapon discharging might be enough to push an entire region, say a vulnerable region like the
Middle East, into an irreversible ecological, economic, and political decline Two or three could thrust
the world into a long term crisis, compounded by the degradation of other dangerous facilities including
nuclear power stations. Five or 10 could wreck the planet
( ) Even if some people survive, civilization will collapse, causing extinction

Nick Bostrum 2002 Prof of Philosophy at Yale university http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html last updated April 15, 2k2
The US and Russia still have huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons. But would an all-out nuclear war really
exterminate humankind? Note that: (i) For there to be an existential risk it suffices that we cant be sure that
it wouldnt. (ii) The climatic effects of a large nuclear war are not well known (there is the possibility of a
nuclear winter). (iii) Future arms races between other nations cannot be ruled out and these could lead to
even greater arsenals than those present at the height of the Cold War. The worlds supply of plutonium has
been increasing steadily to about two thousand tons, some ten times as much as remains tied up in warheads
([9], p. 26). (iv) Even if some humans survive the short-term effects of a nuclear war, it could lead to the
collapse of civilization. A human race living under stone-age conditions may or may not be more
resilient to extinction than other animal species.
SDI 2006
GHD
4
AT: Spark
Spark 2AC Escalation

( ) Nuclear war will escalate -- high alert guarantees
DR Alan Phillips Oct. 2000. http://www.peace.caInuclearwinterrevisitedhtm
With thousands of rocket-launched weapons at launch-on-warning, any day there could be an all-out
nuclear war by accident. The fact that there are only half as many nuclear bombs as there were in the 80s
makes no significant difference. Deaths from world-wide starvation after the war would be several times
the number from direct effects of the bombs, and the surviving fraction of the human race might then
diminish and vanish after a few generations of hunger and disease, in a radioactive environment.
( ) Nuclear war will escalate -- Russian Dead Hand

Pavel Feigenhauer, chief defense correspondent of Segodnya Moscow limes 11-26-98
Russia also has a fully operational dead hand nuclear command machine. Using special
communication rockets launched high into space, this dead hand can issue computer-produced attack
orders to Russian nuclear submarines, bombers and surviving silo missiles if special sensors detect shock
waves from nuclear explosions on Russian territory and all Russian commanding generals have been
killed or are unavailable because all conventional command-and-control communication lines have been
destroyed by surprise enemy attack. As one top Russian general at the time in charge of Russias nuclear
arsenal once told me: You and I could be sitting drinking vodka, Pavel. while this dead hand machine
fights a nuclear world war on ~s own. If all these technical gadgets and Joint operational nuclear staffs
already exist, why does Sergeyev need yet another? To economize? But, there is no talk of disbanding the
general staff itself, for it is considered a sacred cow, the backbone of Russias military machine. So
Sergeyevs new united command will simply overlap existing joint operational departments, creating
additional discord, If the strategic forces of the navy, the air force and SRF are merged, then Russian nuclear
strategic and attack submarines will receive operational orders from different masters.
( ) Nuclear war will escalate alliances, proliferation, and accidents

Louis Rene Beres, Prof. @ Penn, Apocalypse, 1974 p 161
If either one or both of the combatant countries had been party to a major alliance system, special
tensions would develop throughout that system and within its opposite number. At a minimum, military
forces of alliance countries would be Placed on high-alert status and a good deal of saber rattling could
be expected. After a time, such saber rattling could have a self-fulfilling effect, bringing about the very
conditions of extended nuclear conflict it was designed to prevent. If it is generally believed that the twocountry nuclear war had been initiated because the attacking party perceived vulnerability on the part of
the victims retaliatory forces, we could expect that other developing nuclear powers in the system would
accelerate their construction of hair-trigger launch mechanisms and adoption of launch-on-warning
measures. It follows that we could then expect an increased probability of additional strategic exchanges as a
consequence of the accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons.
SDI 2006
GHD
5
AT: Spark
Spark 2AC Firebreak

( ) Even if they win nuclear war doesnt cause extinction, one use destroys the firebreak,
causing more nuclear wars
Richard Betts, Professor and the Director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia, Universal
Deterrence or Conceptual Collapse? Liberal Pessimism and Utopian Realism, The Coming Crisis: Nuclear
Proliferation, U.S. Interests, and World Order, ed. Utgoff, 2000, p. 82
Quite opposite reactions are imaginable. The shock might jar sluggish statesmen into taking the danger
seriously, cutting through diplomatic and military red tape, and undertaking dramatic actions to push the
genie back in the bottle. Or the shock might prompt panic and a rush to stock up on WMD, as the
possibility of use underlines the need for deterrent capability, or the effectiveness of such weapons as
instruments of policy One seldom-noticed danger is that breakage of the taboo could demystify the
weapons and make them look more conventional than our post-Hiroshima images of them. It helps to
recall that in the 1930s, popular images of conventional strategic bombing were that it would be
apocalyptic, bringing belligerent countries to their knees quickly. The apocalyptic image was fed by the
German bombing of Guernica, a comparatively small city in Spain. When World War II came in Europe, both
British and Germans initially refrained from bombing attacks on cities. Once city bombing began and
gathered steam, however, it proved to be far less decisive than many had expected. British and German
populations managed to adjust and absorb it. Over time, however, the ferocity of Allied bombing of
Germany and Japan did approach the apocalyptic levels originally envisioned. In short, dire assumptions
about the awesomeness of strategic bombing deterred its initiation, but once initiated did not prevent
gradual escalation to the devastating level originally envisioned. Nuclear weapon inventories of countries
like India and Pakistan are likely to remain small in number and yield for some time. According to press
reports, by some U.S. estimates the yields of the 1998 tests were only a few kilotons. If the first weapon
detonated in combat is a low-yield device in a large city with uneven terrain and lots of reinforced concrete, it
might only destroy a small part of the city A bomb that killed 10,000 to 20,000 people would be seen as a
stunning catastrophe, but there are now many parts of the world where that number would be less than 1
percent of a citys population. The disaster could seem surprisingly limited, since in the popular
imagination (underwritten by the results in the small and flimsy cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), nuclear
weapons mean one bomb, one city Awful destruction that yet seems surprisingly limited could prompt
revisionist reactions among lay elites in some countries about the meaning of nuclear ordnance.
SDI 2006
GHD
6
AT: Spark
Spark 2AC No Mindset Shift

( ) No mindset shift psychological effects of nuclear war are too devastating
Arthur M. Katz and Sima R. Osdoby THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WAR April
21,1982 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/paO09.html
The experience of nuclear war is likely to have devastating psychological effects, especially for
Americans, whose homes and institutions have essentially escaped the ravages of recent wars. The very
short period required to carry out highly destructive nuclear attacks would intensify the emotional
impact, particularly those reactions associated with denial of the true extent of the damage or fostering
flight from and resistance to reentering damaged areas. Robert J. Lifton, in his study of Hiroshima
survivors, described the psychological effect as a sudden and absolute shift from normal existence to an
overwhelming encounter with death.[20] The reaction, as reported by a witness to the disaster, Father
Siemes: Among the passersby, there are many who are uninjured. In a purposeless, insensate manner,
distraught by the magnitude of the disaster, most of them rush by and none conceives the thought of
organizing help on his own initiative. They are concerned only with the welfare of their own
families.[211 In some cases even families were abandoned. The result of this experience was, as Fred IkIe
described it 25 years ago, a deep aversion to returning to the cities to rebuild the economy. And thus a very
different situation will exist from that envisaged in most civil defense plans (in the 1 950s).[221 The
economic implications of this type of withdrawal would be serious. A high incidence of abnormal
behavior, ranging from the nonfunctional to the antisocial, could be anticipated. Specific psychological
effects would include disorientation, fear, doubt, apathy, and antipathy toward authonties. The effects on
Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivors provide ample evidence to support these concerns.
SDI 2006
GHD
7
AT: Spark
Spark 2AC Immoral

( ) Nuclear war is immoral, even if it doesnt cause extinction its the ultimate in
dehumanization, stripping even death of all meaning
Peter Beckman, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, et al, The Nuclear Predicament: Nuclear Weapons in the
Twenty-First Century, 3rd edition, 2000, p. 296-297
Individual death is not the only death that affects the way people live. Since humans are social beings who
define themselves naturally as parts of families, societies, kinship groups, religions, nations, and humanity as
a whole, how they view themselves will depend largely on whether they anticipate the continuing
existence of these social entities. In the prenuclear age, the individual obviously dies, but the social unit,
the nation, the family, the species, was understood as outliving death. But in the nuclear age, we must
anticipate nuclear death as a collective experience, what Norman Cousins called irrational deathdeath
of a new kind, a nondiscriminating death without warning, death en masse. While all deaths are individual,
in the mass deaths of the twentieth century, be they at Auschwitz or at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the
individual is lost in a faceless, mindless, random destruction. Writer Norman Mailer described the
transformation as follows: For the first time in civilized history, perhaps for the first time in all history, we
have been forced to live with the suppressed knowledge that the smallest facets of our personality or the
most minor projections of our ideas ... might be doomed to die as a cipher in some vast statistical
operation in which our teeth would be counted, and our hair would be saved, but our death itself unknown,
unhonored and unrewarded, a death which could not follow with dignity as a possible consequence to
serious actions we have chosen, but rather a death in a gas chamber or a radioactive city; and so ... in the
midst of civilization ... our psyche was subjected itself to the intolerable anxiety that death being causeless,
life was causeless as well, and time deprived of cause and effect had come to a stop. If the type of death we
anticipate is important because it affects how we view ourselves in the world, then the pervasive fear of
nuclear annihilation does not necessarily tell us anything about death per se, but rather it reveals something
about the perception humans have of their place and worth in the world. Nuclear weapons challenge a basic
belief in the importance of the individual. They challenge possibly the most central tenet of the JudeoChristian world view: Each individual is unique and important and created in the image of God. If you
save one life it is like saving the entire world, the Talmud teaches. God so loved the world that He gave His
only begotten son, John says. Now, we are haunted with the image of human beings as objects, as matter, to
be burned, radiated, turned into ashes or vapor.
( ) Dehumanization is the worst impact

Berube, professor of speech communication, Nanotechnology Magazine June/July 1997,
http://www.cla.sc.edu/ENGL/faculty/berube/prolong.htm, accessed, 5/17/04
Assuming we are able to predict who or what are optimized humans, this entire resultant worldview
smacks of eugenics and Nazi racial science. This would involve valuing people as means. Moreover,
there would always be a superhuman more super than the current ones, humans would never be able to
escape their treatment as means to an always further and distant end. This means-ends dispute is at the core
of Montagu and Matson's treatise on the dehumanization of humanity. They warn: "its destructive toll is
already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and its potential
danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this
sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of
the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents... in the
cuckoo's next of America, lies a dehumanized image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it
may never be possible to quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to
conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities which would be foregone. When we
calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than
any tools which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental
apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When
people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be
inevitable for every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.
SDI 2006
GHD
8
AT: Spark
Spark 2AC Space

( ) Nuclear war stops space colonization
Sylvia Engdahl, professor at New Yorks New School for Social Research, former computer systems specialist for
the SAGE Air Defense System and author. Space and Human Survival, 2000
http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm
I have called this stage in our evolution the Critical Stage. Paul Levinson [the Director of Connected
Education] uses different terminology for the same concept. He says that we have only a narrow window to
get into space, a relatively short time during which we have the capability, but have not yet run out of the
resources to do it. I agree with him completely about this. Expansion into space demands high technology
and full utilization of our worlds material resources (although not destructive utilization). It also demands
financial resources that we will not have if we deplete the material resources of Earth. And it demands
human resources, which we will lose if we are reduced to global war or widespread starvation. Finally,
it demands spiritual resources, which we are not likely to retain under the sort of dictatorship that would be
necessary to maintain a sustainable global civilization. Because the window is narrow, then, we not only
have to worry about immediate perils. The ultimate, unavoidable danger for our planet, the transformation of
our sun, is distantbut if we dont expand into space now, we can never do it.
( ) Extinction
James Oberg, space writer and a former space flight engineer based in Houston, 1999, Space Power Theory,
http://www.jamesoberg.com/books/spt/new-CHAPTERSw_figs.pdf
We have the great gift of yet another period when our nation is not threatened; and our world is free from
opposing coalitions with great global capabilities. We can use this period to take our nation and our fellow
men into the greatest adventure that our species has ever embarked upon. The United States can lead, protect,
and help the rest of [hu]mankind to move into space. It is particularly fitting that a country comprised of
people from all over the globe assumes that role. This is a manifest destiny worthy of dreamers and poets,
warriors and conquerors. In his last book, Pale Blue Dot, Carl Sagan presents an emotional argument that our
species must venture into the vast realm of space to establish a spacefaring civilization. While acknowledging
the very high costs that are involved in manned spaceflight, Sagan states that our very survival as a
species depends on colonizing outer space. Astronomers have already identified dozens of asteroids
that might someday smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain undetected. In Sagans opinion,
the only way to avert inevitable catastrophe is for mankind to establish a permanent human presence in
space. He compares humans to the planets that roam the night sky, as he says that humans will too wander
through space. We will wander space because we possess a compulsion to explore, and space provides a truly
infinite prospect of new directions to explore. Sagans vision is part science and part emotion. He hoped that
the exploration of space would unify humankind. We propose that mankind follow the United States and our
allies into this new sea, set with jeweled stars. If we lead, we can be both strong and caring. If we step back,
it may be to the detriment of more than our country.
SDI 2006
GHD
9
AT: Spark
Spark 2AC Bioweapons

( ) Nuclear war causes CBW use and extinction
The Preperation 2002, http://thepreparation.net/Chap6.html
Mankind has been faced with the threat of nuclear war for some time now, and despite what some people
think, the threat hasnt gone away. The threat has shifted somewhat though, towards a threat of nuclear
terrorism and nuclear exchanges between lesser military powers. Nuclear war in and of itself never did pose a
threat of eliminating all of humanity. A full scale nuclear war in which every nuclear weapon on Earth is used
could wipe out around 30% of the Earths human population (most fatalities in a nuclear war result from after
effects of the nuclear exchange such as: radiation poisoning, environmental changes, starvation, ... and social
upheaval) and set human technology back 40 years. The larger problem with nuclear war is nuclear weapons
will almost never be used alone. Nuclear weapons will be used together with chemical, biological, and
conventional weapons, and this combination of weaponry would have the potential of eradicating all
human life, if the conflict were world wide.
( ) Even one use of bioweapons can cause extinction

Steinbrunner, Foreign policy 12-22-97
That deceptively simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon is a
singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects, whatever they may be. decay
rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even before a nuclear warhead is
detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of
radioactive fallout. Such predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a
pathogen, by contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely controlled. For
most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly or decisively
enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens - ones most likely to have a decisive effect and
therefore the ones most likely to be contemplated for deliberately hostile use -the risk runs in the other
direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim to another would be capable of
initiating an intensifying cascade of disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population.
The 1918 influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily
its outer limit.
SDI 2006
GHD
10
AT: Spark
Spark 2AC Environment

( ) Nuclear war destroys ecosystems
John Birks, Associate Professor of Chemistry at the University of Colorado, and Anne Ehrlich, Senior Research
Associate in the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University, Hidden Dangers Environmental
Consequences of Preparing for War, 1990, p. 135
Each nuclear winter effect by itselfsharply reduced and unpredictably fluctuating light levels and
temperatures, altered precipitation patterns, air pollutants, acid deposition, radioactive fallout, and
increased UV-B--would have severe consequences on many forms of life and, both directly and through
differential effects on species, for ecosystems. Combined, the results would be devastating. Damage to
plants from cold and lack of light would be exacerbated by drought and exposure to air pollutants, acidity,
radioactivity, and UV-B radiation, each of which can cause direct damage to plant tissues and/or inhibit
photosynthesis. Animals that survived the cold would face starvation as well as assaults from
radioactivity, UV-B, and air pollutants. In severe drought or freezing conditions, lack of water could be an
additional problem. The ability of ecosystems to function and provide life-support services for civilization
would be heavily compromised by such conditions. Populations of many vulnerable organisms would
certainly perish, with repercussions throughout food webs. Herbivorous food specialists would disappear
in the wake of their food-plants; their predators would also soon find slim pickings. Bees and other insects
that are essential for pollination of numerous plants (including dozens of crops) would be vulnerable to cold
weather, loss of light for navigation, and the failure of many plants to flower and produce nectar. Later, they
could be disoriented by increased ultraviolet light, which is visible to many insects. As normal food supplies
for many organisms in natural ecosystems vanished, surviving animals would soon devour whatever
remained that could provide nourishment, thereby destroying seed banks, seedlings, eggs, and young
animalsthe wellsprings of recovery. Insects and other hungry animals would also naturally turn to the
most abundant source of food in target regions: crops, which probably could no longer be protected by
pesticides. And human survivors, whose stored food and crops were damaged beyond use and undefendable
against pests, would turn to natural ecosystems to hunt and gather whatever they could find. The organisms
that would most easily survive such difficult conditions would be the opportunistic species that people
generally regard as pests or weeds. The combined effects of decimated seedbanks and animal populations,
soils degraded by erosion, and continued abnormal weather would retard regeneration of ecosystems. The
plant and animal communities that eventually appeared would be impoverished in species diversity and
often dominated by undesirable opportunistsvery different from the natural communities of coevolved
organisms they replaced. The typical consequences of destroying natural ecosystems and impairing their
services to humanity would follow a nuclear war, but on a grander scale. These would include accentuated
floods and droughts (in part depending on the disturbance of rainfall patterns induced by nuclear clouds),
increased soil erosion, silting of streams and reservoirs, outbreaks of pests and diseases, loss of pollination
services, accumulation of wastes and reduced crop yields. The ability of nature to provide sustenance and
absorb abuse would be substantially reduced, just when human survivors were in dire need.
( ) Extinction evidence is gender modified

MAJOR DAVID N. DINER, Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army, Military Law Review
Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161
Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow
ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more
complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is
connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched
circle of threads -- which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions,
humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of
ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the
United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically,
each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause
total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like
a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging
closer to the abyss. ([ ] = correction}
SDI 2006
GHD
11
AT: Spark
Spark 2AC Ozone

( ) Nuclear war causes ozone depletion
DR Alan Phillips aphil@cuio2.icom.ca Oct. 2000. http://www.peace.caInuclearwinterrevisited. htm
Another bad environmental thing that would happen is destruction of the ozone layer. The reduction in the
ozone layer could be 50% - 70% over the whole northern hemisphere - very much worse than the current
losses that we are properly concerned about. Nitrogen oxides are major chemical agents for this. They are
formed by combination of the oxygen and nitrogen of the air in any big fire and around nuclear
explosions, as they are on a smaller scale around lightning flashes. So after the smoke cleared and the sun
began to shine again, there would be a large increase of UV reaching the earths surface. This is bad for
people in several ways, but dont worry about the skin cancers? not many of the survivors would live long
enough for that to matter. UV is also bad for many other living things, notably plankton, which are the
bottom layer of the whole marine food chain. There would likely be enough UV to cause blindness in
many animals. Humans can Protect their eves if they are aware of the dancier. Animals do not know to do
that, and blind animals do not survive. Blind insects do not pollinate flowers, so there is another reason
why human crops and natural food supplies for animals would fail.
( ) Extinction
The Independent 4-12-92
These are the products, doubling in output every decade, that have contributed to the destruction of the ozone
layer, the thin, unstable veil in the stratosphere which protects earths creatures and plants from, at
best, disease, and, at worst, extinction.
SDI 2006
GHD
12
AT: Spark
Spark 2AC Monoculture

( ) Nuclear war causes crop mutations, destroying plant genetic diversity
Louis Rene Beres, Prof. @ Penn, Apocalypse, 1974 p. 155 Effects on Managed Terrestrial Ecosystems
In the wake of a worldwide nuclear war, the technology base for modern agriculture would disappear,
foods would be contaminated by radionuclides to unacceptable levels, and ionizing radiation could cause
disease epidemics in surviving crops and domesticated animals. Direct genetic effects on crops would
include chromosome breakage and gene mutations, resulting in altered expressions of genes and loss of
chromosome material from the cells nucleus upon division of the cell. The effect of these changes would
be yield reducing sterility in seed crops. Moreover, according to the NAS report: There is the possibility of
mutations in subsequent generations of the exposed plants causing abnormal plants or genetic or whole-plant
lethals. These would not be important in most agricultural situations because man intervenes. However,
mutations to disease susceptibility or inactivation of pathogen inhibitors in these plants might increase
susceptibility to pathogens and affect agriculture. Indirect genetic effects on agricultural plants could arise
from mutations in plant Pathoaens that would increase their virulence.
( ) Extinction
Cary Fowler and Pat Mooney, Rural Advancement Fund International, Shattering: Food, Politics, and the Loss
of Genetic Diversity, 1990, p. ix
While many may ponder the consequences of global warming, perhaps the biggest single environmental
catastrophe in human history is unfolding in the garden. While all are rightly concerned about the
possibility of nuclear war, an equally devastating time bomb is ticking away in the fields of farmers all over
the world. Loss of genetic diversity in agriculturesilent, rapid, inexorableis leading us to a rendezvous
with extinction to the doorstep of hunger on a scale we refuse to imagine. To simplify the environment
as we have done with agriculture is to destroy the complex interrelationships that hold the natural world
together. Reducing the diversity of life, we narrow our options for the future and render our own
survival more precarious. It is life at the end of the limb. That is the subject of this book. Agronomists in
the Philippines warned of what became known as southem com leaf blight in 1961. The disease was reported
in Mexico not long after. In the summer of 1968, the first faint hint that the blight was in the United States
came from seed growers in the Midwest. The danger was ignored. By the spring of 1971 the disease had
taken hold in the Florida con crop. But it was not until corn prices leapt thirty cents a bushel on the chicago
Board of Trade that the world took notice; by then it was Augustand too late. By the close of the year,
Americans had lost fifteen percent of their most important cropmore than a billion bushels. Some southern
states lost half their harvest and many of their farmers. While consumers suffered in the grocery stores,
producers were out a billion dollars in lost yield. And the disaster was not solely domestic. U.S. seed exports
may have spread the blight to Africa. Latin America and Asia.
SDI 2006
GHD
13
AT: Spark
Spark 2AC Disease

( ) Nuclear war causes mass disease outbreaks destroys medical infrastructure
Online version of: Nissani, M., Ph.D., Genetics, University of Pittsburgh, 1975.B.A., philosophy, psychology,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1972. 1992. Lives in the Balance: the Cold War and American Politics, 19451991. http://www.cll.wayne.edulisp/mnissani/PAGEPUB/cH2 html
These remarkable differences between us and our ancestors, and between us and many of our less fortunate
contemporaries in poor nations, are not for the most part attributable to better cures. They spring from
advances in our understanding of the causes of diseases and, consequently, in our ability to combat them
effectively by preventing their occurrence. Prevention strategies include such things as sanitation, widespread
immunization, nutritional supplements, chlorination of drinking water, and drying or spraying swamps as part
of the fight against malaria. In contrast, in past centuries people were more susceptible to disease because of
poor nutrition, poor education, and inadequate shelter. No complex infrastructure for controlling epidemics
existed. Owing to poor sanitation, typhoid, cholera, plague, and many other epidemics spread unabated. In
the absence of antibiotics, deaths from diseases like pneumonia and syphilis were commonplace. It follows
that modern advances in health are ascribable to new knowledge and to the development of a complex
infrastructure of prevention and health-care delivery. After a nuclear war the knowledge may remain.
But much of the infrastructure will be destroyed, precisely at the point when it is most sorely needed by
the irradiated, starved, and emotionally and physically stressed survivors. At least for a few years,
survivors of warring nations might revert to the good old days of their forebears, or to the good contemporary
days of their less fortunate brothers and sisters in the Third World. Epidemics of all sorts might break out.
Many people who depend for survival on medical help (like diabetics and regular users of dialysis machines)
will be dead in a short time.
( ) Extinction
Steinbruner, 12/22/1997 [Foreign Policy, lexis]
It is a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense
against this threat have not depended on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution,
the human body has developed physical barriers and a biochemical immune system whose sophistication and
effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand. But evolution is a sword that
cuts both ways: New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt. Throughout history, there
have been epidemics during which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale. An infectious
agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated 20 million people over a tour-year
period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europes population at the time.
Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of the HIV virus have infected an estimated
29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million people currently dying of AIDS each year. Malaria, tuberculosis,
and cholera - once thought to be under control - are now making a comeback. As we enter the twentyfirst century, changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread contagion. The rapid
growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across international
borders, and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens are
all cause for worry that the problem might be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past. The
threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of public health, but a fundamental security problem for the
species as a whole.
SDI 2006
GHD
14
AT: Spark
Ext Extinction
( ) Half the world population would die from immediate effects
Carl Sagan is David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences and Director of the Laboratory for
Planetary Studies at Cornell University Foreign Affairs 1983/1984
Recent estimates of the immediate deaths from blast, prompt radiation, and fires in a major exchange
in which cities were targeted range from several hundred million to 1.1 billion people -- the latter estimate
is in a World Health Organization study in which targets were assumed not to be restricted entirely to NATO
and Warsaw Pact countries. n7 Serious injuries requiring immediate medical attention (which would be
largely unavailabe) would be suffered by a comparably large number of people, perhaps an additional 1.1
billion. n8 Thus it is possible that something approaching half the human population on the planet would
be killed or seriously injured by the direct effects of the nuclear war. Social disruption; the unavailability
of electriaity, fuel, transportation, food deliveries, communication and other civil services; the absence of
medical care; the decline in sanitation measures; rampant disease and severe psychiatric disorders would
doubtless collectively claim a significant number of further victims. But a range of additional effects -some unexpected, some inadequately treated in earlier studies, some uncovered only recently -- now make
the picture much more somber still.
( ) Even limited war is catastrophic Radiation, Water contamination, Agriculture loss,

regional conflagrations, forest fires and nuclear winter
Beres, Prof of Political Science Purdue, Security or Armageddon 1986, p 11-12
Even the most limited nuclear exchange would signal unprecedented catastrophe. The immediate effects
of the explosions - thermal radiation, nuclear radiation, and blast damage-would cause wide swaths of
death and devastation. Victims would suffer flash and flame bums. Retinal bums could occur in the eyes of
persons at distances of several hundred miles from the explosion. People would be crushed by collapsing
buildings or tom by flying glass. Others would fall victim to raging firestorms and conflagrations. Fallout
injuries would include whole-body radiation injury, produced by penetrating, hard gamma radiation;
superficial radiation burns produced by soft radiations: and injuries produced by deposits of radioactive
substances within the body. In the aftermath, medical facilities that might still exist would be stressed beyond
endurance. Water supplies would become unusable as a result of fallout contamination. Housing and
shelter would be unavailable for survivors. Transportation and communication would break down to
almost prehistoric levels. And overwhelming food shortages would become the rule for at least several
years. Since the countries involved would have entered into war as modern industrial economies, their
networks of highly interlocking and interdependent exchange systems would now be shattered. Virtually
everyone would be deprived of a means of livelihood. Emergency fire and police services would be
decimated altogether. Systems dependent upon electrical power would cease to function. Severe trauma
would occasion widespread disorientation and psychological disorders for which there would be no
therapeutic services. In sum, normal society would disappear. The pestilence of unrestrained murder and
banditry would augment the pestilence of plague and epidemics. With the passage of time, many of the
survivors could expect an increased incidence of degenerative diseases and various kinds of cancer. They
might also expect premature death, impairment of vision and a high probability of sterility. Among the
survivors of Hiroshima, for example, an increased incidence of leukemia and cancer of the lung, stomach,
breast, ovary, and ute~ne cervix has been widely documented. Such a war could also have devastating
climatic effects. It is now widely understood that even the explosion of a mere 100 megatons (less than 1
percent of the worlds arsenals) would be enough to generate an epoch of cold and dark nearly as severe
as in the 5,000-megaton case. As we have learned from Carl Sagan, the threshold for the nuclear winter is
very low.
Even limited nuclear war kills everyone

Alan Robock, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, September, 1989, p. 35
The implications of nuclear winter are clear: the use of nuclear weapons would be suicide for all the
peoples of the planet. A first strike would kill the aggressors, even if their victims could not retaliate. And
the threat of nuclear retaliation, even for a conventional attack, is meaningless if it will also kill the
retaliators. Even a limited nuclear war would produce these effects.
SDI 2006
GHD
15
AT: Spark
Ext Extinction AT: Southern Hemisphere

( ) Shockingly, the effects of nuclear war spread the south isnt safe
Unlike many previous studies, the effects do not seem to be restricted to northern mid-latitudes, where
the nuclear exchange would mainly take place. There is now substantial evidence that the heating by
sunlight of atmospheric dust and soot over northern mid-latitude targets would profoundly change the
global circulation. Fine particles would be transported across the equator in weeks, bringing the cold
and the dark to the Southern Hemisphere. (In addition, some studies suggest that over 100 megatons
would be dedicated to equatorial and Southern Hemisphere targets, thus generating fine particles
locally.) nil While it would be less cold and less dark at the ground in the Southern Hemisphere than in the
Northern, massive climatic and environmental disruptions may be triggered there as well.
( ) Countries dont need to get directly hit theyd just starve

UPI 10-3-85
A nuclear war hitting 100 cities could create a nuclear winter effect in which billions might die of
mass starvation, astronomer Carl Sagan said Thursday. Sagan told the Senate Armed Services Committee
the nuclear winter effect of lowered temperatures, less sunlight and crop failures might deter a first strike
because it would be an elaborate way to commit national suicide. Assistant Defense Secretary Richard
Perle, who also testified before the panel, conceded it was almost certain that a nuclear winter would result
from a very large-scale nuclear war. But he said there was tremendous uncertainty at what point the
threshold between no effect on the atmosphere and a nuclear winter is crossed. The hearing was the second of
two called by Chairman Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., to explore the issue before his influential panel. Sagan
noted previous testimony to the panel said that massive global starvation is a very likely consequence of
a widespread war that would drive down global temperatures because of smoke thrown into the
atmosphere. He said the loss of crops means that people in other countries ... are now fundamentally
threatened even if no nuclear weapons fall on them.
SDI 2006
GHD
16
AT: Spark
Ext Extinction AT: Hiroshima/Nagasaki

( ) Hiroshima and Nagasaki are irrelevant examples the bombs were smaller and
detonated in the air
Online version of: Nissani, M. Ph.D., Genetics, University of Pittsburgh, 1 975.B.A., philosophy, psychology,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1972. 1992. Lives in the Balance: the Cold War and American Politics, 19451991. http://www.cll.wayne.edu/isplmnissanj/PAGEPUB/CH2.html
Yet grim as these experiences were, they offer only a partial picture of a future nuclear war between two
nuclear-weapon states. As an air burst, the Hiroshima bomb generated little local fallout. So, unlike the
prospective victims of an all-out nuclear war, the people of Hiroshima were spared the devastating
impact of lingering high levels of radioactivity. The explosion in Nagasaki-the only other nuclear bombing
during the war-was an air burst too, so no fallout from other surface bursts drifted to Hiroshima. In contrast,
in an all-out nuclear war, many areas, regardless of whether they are hit directly, will have to contend
with such radioactive imports. And by todays standards, the Hiroshima bomb- with only one-thirtieth
the destructive power of humanitys average warhead14-is comparable to a mere battlefield weapon.
We must also keep in mind the enormous number of nuclear bombs which might be used in an all-out
war. Beyond a certain point, their overall impact-especially on such complex entities as the biosphere, world
economy, and human societies-may be qualitatively different from a mere sum of the constituent parts (see
below). Also, many bombs are more destructive than one bomb. So a town the size of Hiroshima then, or
of Madison, Wisconsin today, would be hit by more than just one bomb. How many then? The following
story throws some light on this question. In 1960, President Eisenhower sent a few people to the appropriate
headquarters to inquire about Americas war plans. One of his messengers picked a Hiroshima-sized Soviet
town. Unlike Hiroshima, nothing about this town made it stand out as an attractive military target. Yet the
plans allotted it one bomb with 320 times, and three bombs each with 80 times, the explosive yield of the
Hiroshima bomb.2c Hiroshima survivors were also comparatively fortunate in the amount and quality of
help they received. True, Japans rulers did not rush to their aid but help did eventually come. After an allout war, it will be too dangerous to walk about. There will be too few people able to help and too many
needing help, so most victims will receive no help at all.
SDI 2006
GHD
17
AT: Spark
Ext Extinction AT: Shelters

( ) Shelters dont work everyone still dies
Harold Freeman, Prof. Emeritus MIT, IF You Give a Damn About Life 1985 p. 25-26
In a nuclear war, occupants of family shelters will die in assorted ways: by crushing if the shelter is
vulnerable to bomb blast; by incineration if the shelter is reached by the firestorm(at five miles from
burst, shelter temperature could reach 1,500 degrees F); by asphyxiation if the firestorm absorbs all
available oxygen; by Starvation or dehydration in the likely absence of radiation free food or water; or
by initial radiation if the air within the shelter cannot be continuously filtered. MIT physicists estimate
that appearance outside a shelter for more than three minutes will produce fatal third-degree burns
from intense ultraviolet light; this is the consequence of ozone layer depletion. For those at a greater
distance from burst, protection in a fallout shelter could provide a small improvement in chances for survival.
But it will be small indeed. Living mostly in darkness, unable to communicate with others attempting to
survive, with radiation gradually penetrating the shelter, occupants might gain several extra weeks or
months of what could arguably be called life. Lacking means, they will not be able to determine the level
of radioactive contamination of stored food: one choice will be between hunger and radiation sickness.
Toilet refuse and vomit from those gradually being afflicted with some degree of radiation sickness will
add extra stench to the stale air of the shelter. Any early exposure to radiation will have weakened or
destroyed the immune system: even minor infections will take hold and bring death. Any injuries or
burns of those who were late reaching the shelters will be far beyond the range of any first aid kit. With five
or more people in the space of a bathroom, emotion eruption, alternating with demoralization and apathy, is
virtually guaranteed. At best, many occupants of family shelters will find themselves alive in what will turn
out, in short time, to be their coffins. The delay will be shorter for children.
( ) Shelters dont work -- Pentagon study proves nuclear winter causes extinction
UPI 9-4-85
Civil defense plans fall far short of dealing with a nuclear winter and its environmental effects may be
so devastating that human survival could not be assured, a new Pentagon study said Wednesday. The
possibility of a nuclear winter makes the obstacles to survival in a postwar environment appear even
more formidable than earlier foreseen, the 66-page report said. Prepared by Palomar corp. of Washington
for the Defense Nuclear Agency in June and released following its publication in The Los Angeles Times, the
report looks at the implications of a nuclear winter on u.s. strategy, arms control and civil defense measures.
For purposes of analysis, the study embraces the nuclear winter theory put forward by a group of scientists
nearly two years ago -- that the explosions of major nuclear weapons would create enough dust, smoke, soot
and debris to blot out the sun, creating months of darkness and cold temperatures over the Northern
Hemisphere. The unstated theme of the studys conclusions was that little could be done to avoid the onset
of a nuclear winter or to protect populations against its effects in the event of a maior exchange of
nuclear weapons, even if they did not hit U.S. territory. In a worst-case scenario envisioned by the nuclear
winter theorists, the study said, The long-term biological and environmental effects would be so
devastating that even such exorbitantly expensive measures as building vast underground shelters
might not ensure human survival. The reguirements for sheltering, feeding and otherwise caring for
survivors of a nuclear conflict faced with a nuclear winter would be far more extensive than those anticipated
under current civil defense plans, which focus on protecting the population from the initial blast, fire and
fallout of a nuclear attack, the study said. Moreover, the report said, the necessary preparations for coping
with worst- case nuclear winter conditions might involve the peacetime expenditure of an unacceptably hi
level of resources.
SDI 2006
GHD
18
AT: Spark
Ext Escalation
( ) There would be political pressure for escalation
Arthur M Katz, PhD in chemistry from Rochester, MS in meteorology at MIT, Life After Nuclear War 1982 p. 50
On a national scale, the most serious aspect of a counterforce or limited nuclear attack, even one restricted
to ICBM silos, is its potentially severe consequences for short- and midterm food production, if the U.S.
food production and distribution system is significantly disrupted (not necessarily destroyed), the attack
creates the potential to unleash tremendous political pressure for retaliation.
( ) Extinction only takes half an hour Early Warning Systems ensure escalation
The American Prospect, 2/26/01
The bitter disputes over national missile defense (NMD) have obscured a related but dramatically more
urgent issue of national security: the 4,800 nuclear warheads -- weapons with a combined destructive power
nearly 100,000 times greater than the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima -- currently on "hair-trigger" alert.
Hair-trigger alert means this: The missiles carrying those warheads are armed and fueled at all times.
Two thousand or so of these warheads are on the intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) targeted by
Russia at the United States; 1,800 are on the ICBMs targeted by the United States at Russia; and
approximately 1,000 are on the submarine-based missiles targeted by the two nations at each other. These
missiles would launch on receipt of three computer-delivered messages. Launch crews -- on duty every
second of every day -- are under orders to send the messages on receipt of a single computer-delivered
command. In no more than two minutes, if all went according to plan, Russia or the United States could
launch missiles at predetermined targets: Washington or New York; Moscow or St. Petersburg. The earlywarning systems on which the launch crews rely would detect the other side's missiles within tens of
seconds, causing the intended -- or accidental -- enemy to mount retaliatory strikes. "Within a half-hour,
there could be a nuclear war that would extinguish all of us," explains Bruce Blair. "It would be,
basically, a nuclear war by checklist, by rote."
SDI 2006
GHD
19
AT: Spark

( ) No chance of mindset shift any nuclear attack would create feelings of isolation and
individualism
21, 1982 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/paO09.html
The massive and simultaneous destruction of economic and human resources would result in an
inability to provide immediate and sufficient human and material aid to damaged areas. There will be no
time to adapt and to innovate as nations did in World War II (U.S.S.R. as previously cited is an example).
More important the lack of outside aid would create a sense of individual and communal isolation. Aid
symbolizes a reconnection with a larger, normal world. This connection helps provide the impetus for
rebuilding the damaged society, creating a sense of vitality and competence to dispel the continuing
perception of isolation. It also has an important function for binding together society, restating a
common thread of hope and shared aspirations that are the essence of national life. The post-attack
situation could be like Japan near the end of World War II. There could be a drift toward
accomplishing personal and private aims rather than those which are national.. farmersgrowing little
more than is required for their own subsistence,[1 7] or more likely, the complete demoralization seen
in an earlier tragedy: Survivors of the Black Death in growing helplessness fell into apathy, leaving ripe
wheat uncut and livestock untendedno one had any inclination to concern themselves about the
future.f181 More pertinent, a panel of experts in a study of social consequence of nuclear war for the Office
of Civil Defense concluded: One month after the attack, less than half the potential labor force could be
expected to work without immediately beneficial compensation. and that, of these, one in five would be
able to function only at a level greatly degraded from his normal abilities. 19]
( ) Even a limited nuclear war causes states to go authoritarian, escalating future conflicts
Brian Martin Published in Journal ef Peace Research, Vol. 19, No. 4,1982, pp. 287-300.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82jpr.html
Limited nuclear war in the periphery. A war breaks out in the Middle East, and resort is made to nuclear
weapons, killing a few hundred thousand people. The United States and the Soviet Union place their nuclear
forces on the highest alert. As the tension continues to build up, a state of emergency is declared in the
US. Normal democratic procedures are suspended, and dissidents are rounded up. A similar process
occurs in many countries allied militarily to the US, and also within the Soviet bloc. A return to the precrisis state of affairs does not occur for years or decades. As well as precipitating bitter political
repression, the crisis contributes to an increased arms race, especially among nonnuclear and small
nuclear powers, as no effective sanctions are applied to those who used nuclear weapons. Another similar
limited nuclear war and supemower crisis becomes likely ... or perhaps the scene shifts to scenario b or c.(b)
Limited nuclear war between the superpowers. A limited exchange of nuclear weapons between the US
and the Soviet Union occurs either due to accident or as part of a threat-counter threat situation. A sizable
number of military or civilian targets are destroyed, either in the US or the Soviet Union or in allied
states, and perhaps 5 or 10 million people are killed. As in scenano a, states of emergency are declared,
political dissent repressed and public outrage channelled into massive military and political
mobilisation to prepare for future confrontations and wars. Scenario c becomes more likely.(c) Global
nuclear war. A massive nuclear exchange occurs, killing 200 million people in the US, Soviet Union and
Europe. National governments, though decimated, survive and apply brutal policies to obtain economic
and military recovery, brooking no dissent. In the wake of the disaster, authoritarian civilian or military
regimes take control in countries relatively unscathed by the war, such as Australia, Japan and Spain.
The road is laid to an even more devastating World War IV.
SDI 2006
GHD
20
AT: Spark

( ) Even if they win theres a shift, it wont last resource problems and preexisting
conflicts
21,1982 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa009.html
Significant interpersonal, intergroup, and inter-regional conflicts would probably arise. Ethnic, racial,
regional. and economic conflicts present in the pre-attack society, while minimized in the period
immediately after an attack, would be heightened after only a limited time by the extent of the
deprivation and the resulting tensions. New antagonisms would develop between hosts and evacuees or
refugees over the possession and use of surviving resources. These phenomena were observed both in
Britain and in Japan during World War II. The Allnutt study predicted these conflicts would be so serious
that they would necessitate the imposition of martial law or other authoritarian system in many localities,
and the widespread use of troops to maintain order. r231
SDI 2006
GHD
21
AT: Spark
Ext Space
( ) We cant get off the rock if theres a war that depletes resources
Sylvia Engdahl, professor at New Yorks New School for Social Research, former computer systems specialist for
the SAGE Air Defense System and author. Space and Human Survival, 2000
http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm
I have called this stage in our evolution the Critical Stage. Paul Levinson [the Director of Connected
Education] uses different terminology for the same concept. He says that we have only a narrow window to
get into space, a relatively short time during which we have the capability, but have not yet run out of
the resources to do it. I agree with him completely about this. Expansion into space demands high
technology and full utilization of our worlds material resources (although not destructive utilization). It
also demands financial resources that we will not have if we deplete the material resources of Earth. And
it demands human resources, which we will lose if we are reduced to global war or widespread
starvation. Finally, it demands spiritual resources, which we are not likely to retain under the sort of
dictatorship that would be necessary to maintain a sustainable global civilization.
Because the window is narrow, then, we not only have to worry about immediate perils. The ultimate,
unavoidable danger for our planet, the transformation of our sun, is distantbut if we dont expand into
space now, we can never do it.
SDI 2006
GHD
22
AT: Spark
Ext Disease
( ) Nuclear war causes disease weakens immune systems and kills natural predators
Carl Sagan is David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and space Sciences and Director of the Laboratory for
Planetary Studies at Cornell university Foreign Affairs 1983/1984
Each of these factors, taken separately, may carry serious consequences for the global ecosystem: their
interactions may be much more dire still. Extremely worrisome is the possibility of poorly understood or as
vet entirely uncontemplated synergisms (where the net consequences of two or more assaults on the
environment are much more than the sum of the component parts). For example, more than 100 rads (and
possibly more than 200 rads) of external and ingested ionizing radiation is likely to be delivered in a very
large nuclear war to all plants, animals and unprotected humans in densely populated regions of northern
mid-latitudes. After the soot and dust clear, there can, for such wars, be a 200 to 400 percent increment in the
solar ultraviolet flux that reaches the ground, with an increase of many orders of magnitude in the more
dangerous shorter-wavelength radiation. Together, these radiation assaults are likely to suppress the
immune systems of humans and other species, making them more vulnerable to disease. At the same time,
the high ambient-radiation fluxes are likely to produce, through mutation, new varieties of
microorganisms, some of which might become pathogenic. The preferential radiation sensitivity of birds
and other insect predators would enhance the proliferation of herbivorous and pathogen-carrying
insects. Carried by vectors with high radiation tolerance, it seems possible that epidemics and global
pandemics would propagate with no hope of effective mitigation by medical care, even with reduced
population sizes and greatly restricted human mobility. Plants, weakened by low temperatures and low
light levels, and other animals would likewise be vulnerable to preexisting and newly arisen pathogens.
( ) Even a limited attack overwhelms medical infrastructure, causing major disease

outbreaks
21,1982 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa009.html
What would this level of destruction mean? If in the most heavily contaminated and damaged regions, all the
doctors survived and hospitals were usable, there would be one doctor for every 50 or 100 injured, and
between 10 and 30 patients per available hospital bed. Even if the entire national health care system was
used, the patient-doctor ratio would be between 25 and 50 to 1 and patients per hospital bed between 10
and 20 to 1. Care for patients suffering from other medical problems, such as heart attack and cancer,
would be significantly degraded for an extended time because of the competing and continuing
demands of those injured by fallout, the loss of physicians and hospitals (because of contamination) in
specific regions, and potential reductions in the manufacture and distribution of medical supplies
(about 30% of all drugs are manufactured in the regions most affected by fallout). For a more specific
example, to treat a single patient exposed to substantial levels of radiation (200 Radiation Equivalent Man
-- REMS -- or more) would require massive medical resources -- intensive care, bone marrow transplants,
blood transtusions and antibiotics. In this type of attack hundreds of thousands -- perhaps millions -would require complex bone marrow transplants to assure survival. Because of reduced resistance to
infectious diseases, all clinical cases (a radiation dose exceeding 50 REMS) would need continuous
protection against infection, involving high doses of antibiotics, etc. Treating large numbers would
rapidly drain existing supplies and professional energy. As antibiotics supplies dwindled and
immunization proved ineffective in this radiation-weakened group, a huge reservoir of potential
disease carriers would develop. Diseases such as polio might reappear. Other key elements of medical
care support systems, such as medical insurance and records, would be disrupted and in chaos after
evacuation.
SDI 2006
GHD
23
AT: Spark
Ext Ozone
( ) Nuclear war destroys the ozone layer, threatening all life on earth
Nuclear explosions of more than one-megaton yield generate a radiant fireball that rises through the
troposphere into the stratosphere. The fireballs from weapons with yields between 100 kilotons and one
megaton will partially extend into the stratosphere. The high temperatures in the fireball chemically
ignite some of the nitrogen in the air, producing oxides of nitrogen, which in turn chemically attack and
destroy the gas ozone in the middle stratosphere. But ozone absorbs the biologically dangerous ultraviolet
radiation from the Sun. Thus the partial depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, or ozonosphere, by
high-yield nuclear explosions will increase the flux of solar ultraviolet radiation at the surface of the
Earth (after the soot and dust have settled out). After a nuclear war in which thousands of high-yield
weapons are detonated, the increase in biologically dangerous ultraviolet light might be several
hundred percent. In the more dangerous shorter wavelengths, larger increases would occur. Nucleic acids
and proteins, the fundamental molecules for life on Earth, are especially sensitive to ultraviolet
radiation. Thus, an increase of the solar ultraviolet flux at the surface of the Earth is potentially
dangerous for life.
SDI 2006
GHD
24
AT: Spark
Ext Environment
( ) Nuclear war instantly kills 50 percent of the worlds species, causes climate oscillations
and destroys the ozone layer
Online version of: Nissani, M. Ph.D., Genetics, University of Pittsburgh, 1 975.B.A., philosophy, psychology,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1972. 1992. Lives in the Balance: the Cold War and American Politics, 19451991. http://www.cll.wayne.edu/isplmnissanj/PAGEPUB/CH2.html
There will be fewer people and less industrial and commercial activity long after the war, hence some serious
environmental threats will be ameliorated. By killing billions and destroying industrial infrastructures,
nuclear war might, for instance, halt or slow down the suspected trend of global warming. On balance,
however, the wars overall environmental impact will almost certainly be on the negative side.
Radioactive fallout will contaminate soils and waters. We shall probably learn to adjust to these new
conditions, perhaps by shunning certain regions or by carrying radioactivity meters everywhere we go the
way our ancestors carried spears. Still, this will lower the quality of human life. Nuclear explosions might
create immense quantities of dust and smoke. The dust and smoke might blanket, darken, and cool the
entire planet. Although the extent of the damage is unclear,24 it would be far more severe during the
growing season-late spring and summer in the northern latitudes. One Cassandran and controversial
prediction sounds a bit like the eerie twilight described in H. G. Wells The Time Machine. This nuclear
winter projection forecasts freezing summertime temperatures,25 temporary climatic changes (e.g.,
violent storms, dramatic reductions in rainfall) lower efficiencies of plant photosynthesis, disruption of
ecosystems and farms, loss of many species, and the death of millions of people from starvation and
cold. However, even these pessimists expect a return to normal climatic conditions within a few years.26a.27
To appreciate the next environmental effect of nuclear war, we must say a few words about the ozone layer.
Ozone is a naturally occurring substance made up of oxygen atoms. Unlike an ordinary oxygen molecule
(which is comprised of two atoms and is fairly stable) an ozone molecule is comprised of three atoms and it
breaks down more readily Most atmospheric ozone is found some 12 to 30 miles above the earths surface (in
the stratosphere). Stratospheric concentrations of ozone are minuscule, occupying less than one-fifth of onemillionth the volume of all other gases in the stratosphere. If all this ozone could be gathered somehow at sea
level to form a single undiluted shield around the earth, this shield would be as wide as the typical cover of a
hardcover book (one-eighth of an inch).28 However, minuscule as its concentrations are, the ozone layer
occupies a respectable place in natures scheme of things. Some chemicals which are produced routinely by
modern industnal society may react with stratospheric ozone, break it down, and lower its levels. Such
depletion may have two adverse conseguences. First, stratospheric ozone selectively absorbs sunlight in
certain portions of the ultraviolet and infrared spectrums, so its depletion will cause more of this radiation to
reach the earth and change global temperature and rainfall pattems. Second, by absorbing more than 99
percent of the suns ultraviolet radiation, stratospheric ozone shields life on earth from its harmful effects
(some scientists feel that terrestrial life could not evolve before this protective shield took its place). Ozone
depletion might allow more ultraviolet radiation to reach the earths surface, thereby disrupting
natural ecosystems, lowering agricultural productivity, suppressing the human immune system, and
raising the incidence of skin cancer and cataracts.28 Since 1985, extensive temporary reductions of the ozone
layer have been observed in polar regions, but their causes (man-made or natural) and implications remain
uncertain.29 From 1981 to 1991, the ozone shield over the Northern Hemisphere has been depleted by 5
percent, thereby allowing a 10 percent increase in ultraviolet radiation on the ground. The connection
between nuclear war and the ozone layer is simple: the heat created by nuclear explosions produces
huge quantities of nitrogen oxides in the surrounding air.25 In addition, the launch of solid-fuel missiles
may release huge quantities of chlorine and nitrogen compounds. 30 These in turn, are precisely among
the chemicals that could cause significant depletion of the ozone layer and lead to the two adverse
consequences described above. In the first days and weeks after the war, smoke and dust will prevent the
increased ultraviolet radiation from reaching the earths surface. But ozone levels will reach their nadir in 6
to 24 months, long after most of the smoke and dust have settled back to earth.2926b Ozone levels will
probably be restored to above 90 percent of former levels within five years after the war.26b Hence, nuclear
winter and ozone depletions are not expected to appreciably offset each other. Under the altered
conditions created by a nuclear war, as many as 50 percent of the earths species might become
extinct,26c some Pest populations might temporarily increase,26d and most natural communities might
undergo radical transformations.
SDI 2006
GHD
25
AT: Spark
Ext Environment
( ) Nuclear winter obliterates ecosystems
John Birks, Associate Professor of Chemistry at the University of Colorado, and Anne Ehrlich, Senior Research
Associate in the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University, Hidden Dangers Environmental
Consequences of Preparing for War, 1990, p. 135
Each nuclear winter effect by itselfsharply reduced and unpredictably fluctuating light levels and
temperatures, altered precipitation patterns, air pollutants, acid deposition, radioactive fallout, and
increased UV-B--would have severe consequences on many forms of life and, both directly and through
differential effects on species, for ecosystems. Combined, the results would be devastating. Damage to
plants from cold and lack of light would be exacerbated by drought and exposure to air pollutants, acidity,
radioactivity, and UV-B radiation, each of which can cause direct damage to plant tissues and/or inhibit
photosynthesis. Animals that survived the cold would face starvation as well as assaults from
radioactivity, UV-B, and air pollutants. In severe drought or freezing conditions, lack of water could be an
additional problem. The ability of ecosystems to function and provide life-support services for civilization
would be heavily compromised by such conditions. Populations of many vulnerable organisms would
certainly perish, with repercussions throughout food webs. Herbivorous food specialists would disappear
in the wake of their food-plants; their predators would also soon find slim pickings. Bees and other insects
that are essential for pollination of numerous plants (including dozens of crops) would be vulnerable to cold
weather, loss of light for navigation, and the failure of many plants to flower and produce nectar. Later, they
could be disoriented by increased ultraviolet light, which is visible to many insects. As normal food supplies
for many organisms in natural ecosystems vanished, surviving animals would soon devour whatever
remained that could provide nourishment, thereby destroying seed banks, seedlings, eggs, and young
animalsthe wellsprings of recovery. Insects and other hungry animals would also naturally turn to the
most abundant source of food in target regions: crops, which probably could no longer be protected by
pesticides. And human survivors, whose stored food and crops were damaged beyond use and undefendable
against pests, would turn to natural ecosystems to hunt and gather whatever they could find. The organisms
that would most easily survive such difficult conditions would be the opportunistic species that people
generally regard as pests or weeds. The combined effects of decimated seedbanks and animal populations,
soils degraded by erosion, and continued abnormal weather would retard regeneration of ecosystems. The
plant and animal communities that eventually appeared would be impoverished in species diversity and
often dominated by undesirable opportunistsvery different from the natural communities of coevolved
organisms they replaced. The typical consequences of destroying natural ecosystems and impairing their
services to humanity would follow a nuclear war, but on a grander scale. These would include accentuated
floods and droughts (in part depending on the disturbance of rainfall patterns induced by nuclear clouds),
increased soil erosion, silting of streams and reservoirs, outbreaks of pests and diseases, loss of pollination
services, accumulation of wastes and reduced crop yields. The ability of nature to provide sustenance and
absorb abuse would be substantially reduced, just when human survivors were in dire need.
SDI 2006
GHD
26
AT: Spark
Wipeout 2AC General

( ) Human life is the only relevant barometer you have to be 100% positive human
existence is on-balance worse for the universe. Any defense at all means you vote aff.
( ) Their evidence is all written by crackpots you should be willing to vote on the
gutcheck that human life is probably a good thing.
( ) We have an infinite responsibility to the other even if you think human life is bad, you
dont have the right to choose for everyone else
D. G. Myers, Associate professor of English and religious studies at Texas A & M, Responsible for Every Single
Pain: Holocaust Literature and the Ethics of Interpretation, Comparative Literature, 51, Fall, 1999, p. 266-288,
http://www-english.tamu.edu/pers/fac/myers/responsible.html
Perhaps the best account of responsibility to emerge from the Holocaust is that of the late Emmanuel Levinas. Although the
philosophical discussion of responsibility is at least as old as Aristotles Politics, since the Holocaust the term belongs by rights to
Levinas. A naturalized French Jew born in Kovno, Lithuania, 92 percent of whose 30,000 Jews were murdered by the
Germans (including most of his family) , Levinas survived the war as a French officer in a pow camp near Hanover, studying
Hegel, Proust, Diderot, and Rousseau between shifts of forced labor in the German forests. It is likely that he experienced the
"belated shame" which, according to Primo Levi in The Drowned and the Saved, "gnaws and rasps" at every
survivor of the Holocaust: Are you ashamed because you are alive in place of another? And in particular, of a man
more generous, more sensitive, more useful, wiser, worthier of living than you? You cannot block out such feelings. . . . It is no more than a supposition,
indeed the shadow of a suspicion: that each man is his brothers Cain, that each of us . . . has usurped his neighbors place and lived in his stead. (81-82) It is
likely that Levinas was tormented by such shame, because his entire philosophy grows out of the inchoate anxiety, which parallels Levis "shadow of a
suspicion," that one persons life usurps anothers. All those who lived through the years 1939 to 1945 "retained a burn on their sides," he remarks, "as
though they had to bear for ever the shame of having survived" ("From the Rise of Nihilism" 221). Levinas argues that human subjectivity or selfconsciousnessthe
foundation of the selfis mauvaise conscience, the feeling of being "not guilty, but accused."
Stripped of its intentionality, its reaching out to grasp an object of knowledge ("an other of consciousness"), existing in a
condition of passivity, the human subject is put into question. What am I? To be, I have to respond. "But, from that point,"
Levinas explains, "in affirming this me being, one has to respond to ones right to be." Self-consciousness is selfjustification, because it is consciousness of being without the intention of being. I am aware of my existence, but I did nothing to bring about my existence.
And therefore I am prey to the gnawings of conscience. Is it possible that I came into being as the result of a crime of which I am unaware? Levinas puts it
my being at home, have these not also been the usurpation

of spaces belonging to the other man whom I have already oppressed or starved, or driven out into a third
even more strongly: My being-in-the-world or my "place in the sun,"
world; are they not acts of repulsing, excluding, exiling, stripping, killing? Pascals "my place in the sun" marks the beginning of the image of the
usurpation of the whole earth. ("Ethics as First Philosophy" 81-82) Since the first stirrings of consciousness are the gnawings of conscience, the first
how are you going to respond to this uneasy sense of being "not guilty,
but accused"? All human action, every effort to budge from the passivity of subjectivity, is a response to ethical challenge. Hence ethics are "first
question before the human subject is the ethical:
philosophy," logically prior to any other mode of thought. Socrates deontological advice that it is better to suffer injustice than to cause it (Gorgias 469c) is
of small assistance to [one] him who is rasped by the mauvaise conscience that [one] he has already caused injustice. "Self-consciousness is not an
Levinas says; "it is inseparable from a consciousness of justice and injustice"

("Religion for Adults" 16). What he proposes is to replace deontology with a counterfactual ethics of responsibility. If I am not
inoffensive action in which the self takes note of its being,"
guilty of hurting another I cannot be blamed for it, but if I nevertheless feel accused of it I can take
responsibility for it. In this way perhaps I can both ease my conscience and begin to repair any damage that I might have caused.
My responsibility to the person I might have hurtthe human Other or Autrui, in Levinass terminology
preempts any claims of my own. Because the injury is counterfactual, because it is not specified and
therefore not limited, my relation to the other is a relation of infinite responsibility, which means there is
no escaping it ("Transcendence and Height" 20-21).8 In Bubers familiar terms, not to respond is to treat
the other as an It rather than a Thou, an object to which things are done rather than a person with
whom I might speak. But for Levinas there is no not responding. To ignore another (is) to shame her, to
make her aware of her isolation from me, and thus to duck the responsibility for not hurting her in these
ways. Everyone is responsible to another whether he knows it or not. Being human is living in responsibility.
Levinass ethics are not prescriptive, then, but descriptive. It is not that I should be responsible; I already
am responsible by virtue of having consciousness. Every new encounter with another raises the question how I am going
to respond to her. Although it is not prescribed, how to respond is a decision entirely within my command. Either I can accept
responsibility or I can defaultthere is no third alternative. The injustice to another "imposes itself upon me,"
Levinas says, "without my being able to be deaf to its call or to forget it, that is, without my being able to suspend my responsibility for
its distress" ("Meaning and Sense" 54)
SDI 2006
GHD
27
AT: Spark
Wipeout 2AC General

( ) Infinite responsibility to the other is key to prevent genocide their moral system is evil
Leonard Grob, Professor of Philosophy at Farleigh Dickinson University, 1999, Ethics After the Holocaust, p. 811
This face-to-face encounter is thus no cognitive event. As we have seen, I cannot know the Other as Other without
diminishing his or her otherness. I can, however, encounter that Other in what Levinas terms an ethical event.
Indeed, it is only with the rending of the ontological schema that ethics first becomes possible. Prior to my meeting
with the Other, there is no ethics as such. Within the totality of being, I am limited in my egoist ambition only by a lack
of power. The Other who meets me face-to-face challenges my very right to exercise power. In so doing, ethics is
born. Cognition no longer represents the highest activity of which a human is capable; it is replaced by
"revelation" of the Other as an ethical event in which, for the first time, I come to realize the arbitrariness of my egoist
ambitions. The thematizing of the cognitive subject is replaced by nothing short of an act of witness on the part of a being
who now becomes an ethical subject. The Other who contests me is an Other truly independent of my appropriative
powers and thus one to whom I can have, for the first time, ethical obligations. As Levinas puts it, this Other is the
first being whom I can wish to murder. Before the totality is rent by the manifestation of the face, there can be no will to
act immorally, as there can be no will to act morally, in any ultimate sense of that word. If one begins with the "imperial
I" appropriating its world, ethics as such can never be founded. The other with whom I inter- act is simply a datum, an
aspect of my universe. Morality makes its first appearance when I confront the Other who is truly Other. Although the
Other appears to me now, on principle, as someone I could wish to kill, he or she in fact summons me to respond
with nonviolence: I am called to willingly renounce my power to act immorally. What I hear from the Other,
Levinas claims, are the words "Thou shalt not kill." Harkening to this injunction constitutes my inaugural act as
an ethical being. In Levinas's words, "Morality begins when freedom, instead of being justified by itself, feels itself to be arbitrary and violent."
Addressing the face of the Other I become ethical. In a turnabout from what has been the norm in the history of Western thought, ethics now is seen, by
Levinas, to constitute the essence of philosophy. Ethics is now "first philosophy," a position usurped until now by the ontological enterprise. The meeting
with the Other-who-is-truly-Other is a primordial event: "Since the Other looks at me," Levinas exclaims, "I am responsible for him, without even having
taken on responsibilities in his regard "" In encountering the Other, I assume responsibility for him. "Responsibility," Levinas proclaims, "is
the essential, primary and fundamental structure of subjectivity Responsibility in fact is not a simple attribute of
subjectivity, as if the latter already existed in itself, before the ethical relationship."'" In other words, my structure as a
human being, in any significant sense of that word, is to be responsible to the Other. My personhood is not to be
identified with that of the solitary ego appropriating its world; it is rather a personhood fundamentally oriented toward
the Other. Ethics, for Levinas, is thus not to be identified with any ethical or even meta-ethical position. Levinas speaks
neither as deontologist nor consequentialist. He does not attempt to articulate any list of rights or obligations, or
even the principles on which the latter would be based. All ethical theories, he implies, are secondary to, or derivative
from, a primordial or founding moment: the encounter with the face of the Other. It is this moment-of-all-moments
which institutes the very possibility of the "ethical" systems so hotly debated within the history of Western thought.
Before there can be any ethical positioningbefore there can be discussions of virtue, happiness, du- tiesthere is
the meeting with the Other. Ethics is no set of directives; rather, in Levinas's words, "Already of itself ethics is an 'optics,'"" a way of seeing which precedesand foundsall that has heretofore been identified as ethical philosophy. The
import of this notion of the primacy of ethics for a rethink- ing of philosophy in the post-Holocaust age cannot be
emphasized strongly enough. For Levinas, philosophy-as-ontology reveals being as nothing short of "war": The visage
of being that shows itself in war is fixed in the concept of totality which dominates Western philosophy. Individuals
are reduced to being bearers offerees that command them unbeknown to themselves. The meaning of individuals
(invisible outside of this totality) is derived from the totality. Individuals within the "being" constructed by
philosophers are merely creatures of the schematizing mind. Such a concept of philosophy is ill-equipped to address the great ethical
issues which arise in the study of the Holocaust. Indeed, for Levinas, "War is not only one of the ordealsthe greatestof which morality lives; it renders
morality derisory." Within the terms of warfare, lying, stealingeven killinglose whatever ethical import they might have. I simply engage in these acts
as "necessary" within the universe created by war. If the being studied by traditional philosophy is conceived of as war, morality loses its core meaning. Not
only is no fundamental ethical critique of the events of the Holocaust possible within the terms of philosophy-as-ontology, but, as I have noted above, it can
be argued that the mode of appropriative thinking of philosophers in our Western tradition has contributed to the
creation of a climate in which genocide can flourish. If, in ontological terms, individual beings are said to have their
meaning solely within the totality in which they find themselves, totalizing thinking may well become totalitarian.
Jews and other victims of Nazi oppression were dehumanized precisely by being viewed in terms of racial categories
applied to them as a whole. If philosophy is a mere egology, as Levinas claims, the totalizing cognitive subject can,
at the far end of a continuum, be seen to pass over into the autocratic "I" of the leaders of the Third Reich. In
contrast to that appropriative thinking which can lead to the brutal dehumanization of the kind present in war, the face-to-face relationship is a pacific one. It
is a relationship winch establishes a peace which is no mere truce, no temporary cessation of inevitable hostilities. For traditional philosophy, knowledge is
power, a power capable of harnessing technology to evil ends. The absolute end of philosophy is its goal of achieving total mastery of being; it is thus not
at all illogical to foresee a progression from conceptual to physical mastery of one's world. Once the locus of an "absolute" is placed in the powers of the "I,"
the other person cannot fail to become merely another datum in a world whose meaning derives itself entirely from me. Often I may treat her or him in
terms of what in the West has been called "goodness." Yet such goodness, for Levinas, is accidental, the product of a determination on my part that it is in
my self-interest to act in a given manner in a given situation. The fundamental reference point remains the "I." Goodness thus established, I argue, along
with Levinas, is a goodness which is simply not good enough!
SDI 2006
GHD
28
AT: Spark
Wipeout 2AC General

( ) Genocide is the ultimate evil voting negative makes you complicit
Arne Johan Vetlesen, Department of Philosophy, University of Oslo, July 2000, Journal of Peace Research,
Genocide: A Case for the Responsibility of the Bystander, p. 520-522
Most often, in cases of genocide, for every person directly victimized and killed there will be hundreds, thousands,
perhaps even millions, who are neither directly targeted as victims nor directly participating as perpetrators. The moral
issues raised by genocide, taken as the illegal act par excellance, are not confined to the nexus of agent and victim.
Those directly involved in a given instance of genocide will always form a minority, so to speak. The majority to the
event will be formed by the contemporary bystanders. Such bystanders are individuals; in their private and
professional lives, they will belong to a vast score of groups and collectives, some informal and closely knit, others
formal and detached as far as personal and emotional involvement are concerned. In the loose sense intended here,
every contemporary citizen cognizant of a specific ongoing instance of genocide, regardless of where in the world,
counts as a bystander. Bystanders in this loose sense are cognizant, through TV, radio, newspapers, and other publicly available sources of
information, of ongoing genocide somewhere in the world, but they are not - by profession or formal appointment involved in it. Theirs is a passive role,
that of onlookers, although what starts out as a passive stance may, upon decision, convert into active engagement in the events at hand. I shall label this
category passive bystanders. This group should be distinguished from bystanders by formal appointment: the latter bystanders have been professionally
Engaged as a third party to the interaction between the two parties directly involved in acts of genocide. The stance of this third party to an ongoing
conflict, even one with genocidal implications, is in principle often seen as one of impartiality and neutrality, typically highlighted by a determined refusal
to take sides. This manner of principled non-involvement is frequently viewed as highly meritorious (Vetlesen, 1998). A case in point would be UN
personnel deployed to monitor a ceasefire between warring parties, or (as was their task in Bosnia) to see to it that the civilians within a UN declared safe
area are effectively guaranteed peace and security, as set down in the mandate to establish such areas. By virtue of their assigned physical presence on the
scene and the specific tasks given to them, such (groups of) bystanders may be referred to as bystanders by assignment. What does it mean to be a
contemporary bystander?To begin with, let us consider this question not from the expected viewpoint that of the bystander - but from the two
viewpoints provided by the parties directly involved in the event. To put it as simply as possible: From the viewpoint of an agent of
genocide, bystanders are persons possessing a potential (one needing to be estimated in every concrete case) to halt
his ongoing actions. The perpetrator will fear the bystander to the extent that he [or she] has reason to believe that
the bystander will intervene to halt the action already under way, and thereby frustrate the perpetrators goal of
eliminating the targeted group, that said, we immediately need to differentiate among the different categories of bystanders introduced above. It is obvious
that the more knowledgeable and other wise resourceful the bystander, the more the perpetrator will have reason to fear that the potential for such resistance
will translate into action, meaning a more or less direct intervention by military or other means. Deemed efficient to reach the objectives of halting the
incipient genocide. Of course, one should distinguish between bystanders who remain inactive and those who become actively engaged. Nonetheless, the
point to be stressed is that, in principle, even the most initially passive and remote bystander possesses a potential to cease
being a mere onlooker to the events unfolding. Outrage at what comes to pass may prompt the judgement that
this simply must be stopped and translate into action promoting that aim. But is not halting genocide first and
foremost a task, indeed a duty, for the victims themselves? The answer is simple: The sheer fact that genocide is
happening shows that the targeted group has not proved itself able to prevent it. This being so, responsibility for
halting what is now unfolding cannot rest with the victims alone, it must also be seen to rest with the party not
itself affected but which is knowledgeable about -which is more or less literally witnessing the genocide that is
taking place. So whereas for the agent, bystanders represent the potential of resistance, for the victims they may
represent the only source of hope left. In ethical terms, this is borne out in the notion of responsibility of Immanuel
Levinas (1991), according to which responsibility grows bigger the weaker its addressee. Of course, agents of genocide may
be caught more or less in delicto flagrante. But in the age of television - with CNN being able to film and even interview doers as well as victims on the
spot, and broadcast live to the entire television-watching world (such as was the case in the concentration camp Omarska in Bosnia in August 1992) (see
Gutman, 1993) physical co-presence to the event at hand is almost rendered superfluous. One need not have been there in order to have known
what happened, The same holds for the impact of the day-to-day reporting From the ground by newspaper journalists of indisputable reputation. In order to
be knowledgeable about ongoing genocide, it suffices to watch the television news or read the front pages of a daily newspaper. But, to be more precise,
what exactly does it mean to act? What is to count as an action? We need to look briefly at the philosophical literature on the notion of action as well as
the notion of agent responsibility following from it - in order to gel a better grasp of the moral issues involved in being a bystander to genocide, whether
passive or active. I never forget', says Paul Ricoeur in Oneself as Another, 'to speak of humans as acting and suffering, The moral problem', he continues,
is grafted onto the recognition of this essential dissymmetry between the one who acts and the one who undergoes, culminating in the violence of the
powerful agent.' To be the 'sufferer' of a given action in Ricoeur's sense need not be negative; either 'the sufferer appears as the beneficiary of esteem or as
the victim of disesteem, depending on whether the agent proves to be someone who distributes rewards or punishments'. Since there is to every action an
agent and a sufferer (in the sense given), action is interaction, its structure is interpersonal (Ricoeur. 1992:145). But this is not the whole picture. Actions are
also omitted, endured, neglected, and the like; and Ricoeur takes these phenomena to remind us that on the level of interaction, just as on that of subjective
understanding, not acting is still acting: neglecting, forgetting to do something, is also letting things be done by
someone else, sometimes to the point of criminality. (Ricoeur, 1992:157) Ricoeur's systematic objective is to extend the theory of action from acting to
suffering beings; again and again he emphasizes that 'every action has its agents and its patients' (1992; 157). Ricoeur's proposed extension certainly sounds
plausible. Regrettably, his proposal stops halfway. The vital insight articulated, albeit not developed, in the passages quoted is that not acting is still acting .
Brought to bear on the case of genocide as a reported, on going affair, the inaction making a difference is the
inaction of the bystander to unfolding genocide. The failure to act when confronted with such action, as is involved
in accomplishing genocide, is a failure which carries a message to both the agent and the sufferer: the action may
proceed. Knowing, yet still not acting, means-granting acceptance to the action. Such inaction entails letting things be done by
someone else - clearly, in the case of acknowledged genocide, 'to the point of criminality', to invoke one of the quotes from Ricoeur. In short, inaction here
means complicity; accordingly, it raises the question of responsibility, guilt, and shame on the part of the inactive bystander, by which I mean the bystander
who decides to remain inactive
SDI 2006
GHD
29
AT: Spark
Wipeout 2AC Overpop

Birth rates and fertility are decreasing the population will stop rising by 2050.
Rhett A. Butler, founder of www.mongabay.com, 7.6.06, Saving the world in six easy steps
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0706-world.html
According to figures released last year by the U.N., global birth rates fell to the lowest level in recorded
history with the average woman in the developing world having 2.9 children, down from an average of
nearly six babies in the 1970s. UN demographers also predict that fertility in most of the developing
world will fall below the replacement level (2.1 children per woman) before the end of the 21st century.
Factors leading to falling birth rates include increased level education for women, the use of
contraceptives, and urbanization. The human population is expected to peak around 9.1 billion in 2050.
SDI 2006
GHD
30
AT: Spark
Wipeout 2AC Antimatter/Black Holes

( ) No risk of particle acceleration creating a black hole even if they do, it doesnt hurt
anything
New Scientist 8-28-99
Within 24 hours, the laboratory issued a rebuttal: the risk of such a catastrophe was essentially zero. The
Brookhaven National Laboratory that runs the collider had set up an international committee of
experts to check out this terrifying possibility. But BNL director John Marburger, insisted that the risks
had already been worked out. He formed the committee simply to say why they are so confident the Earth
is safe, and put their arguments on the Web to be read by a relieved public .Magazine Even so, many people will be
stunned to learn that physicists felt worried enough even to mull over the possibility that a new machine might destroy us all. In fact,
theyve been fretting about it for over 50 years. The first physicist to get the collywobbles was Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen
bomb. In July 1942, he was one of a small group of theorists invited to a secret meeting at the University of California, Berkeley, to
sketch out the design of a practical atomic bomb. Teller, who was studying the reactions that take place in a nuclear explosion, stunned
his colleagues by suggesting that the colossal temperatures generated might ignite the Earths atmosphere. While some of his colleagues
immediately dismissed the threat as nonsense. I. Robert Oppenheimer, director of the Manhattan Project, set up to build the atom bomb,
took it seriously enough to demand a study. The report, codenamed LA-602, was made public only in February 1973. It concentrated on
the only plausible reaction for destroying the Earth, fusion between nuclei of nitrogen-14. The report contirmed what the sceptics had
insisted all along: the nuclear fireball cools down too far quickly to trigger a self-sustaining fire in the atmosphere. Yet in November
1975, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists claimed that Arthur Compton, a leading member of the Manhattan Project, had said that
there really was a risk of igniting the atmosphere. It turned out to be a case of Chinese whispers: Compton had mentioned the calculation
during an interview with the American writer Pearl Buck, who had got the wrong end of the stick. Even so, the Los Alainos study is a
watershed in the history of science, for it marks the first time scientists took seriously the risk that they might accidentally blow us all
up. Th~ issue keeps raising its ugly head. In recent years the main focus of fear has been the giant machines
used by particle physicists. Could the violent collisions inside such a machine create something nasty ?
Every time a new machine has been built at CERN, says physicist Alvaro de Rujula, the question has been
posed and faced. One of the most nightmarish scenarios is destruction by black hole. Black holes are
bottomless pits with an insatiable appetite for anything and everything. If a tiny black hole popped into
existence in RHIC, the story goes, it would burrow down from Long Island to the centre of the Earth and eat
our planet - or blow it apart with all the energy released. So why are physicists convinced that theres no
chance of this happening? Well, the smallest possible black hole is around 10-35 metres across (the socalled Planck Length). Anything smaller iust gets wiped out by the quantum fluctuations in space-time
around it. But even such a tiny black hole would weigh around 10 micrograms - about the same as a
speck of dust. To create obiects with so much mass by collisions in a particle accelerator demands
energies of 1019 giga-electronvolts, so the most powerful existing collider is ten million billion times too
feeble to make a black hole. Scaling up todays technology, we would need an accelerator as big as the
Galaxy to do it. And even then, the resulting black hole wouldnt be big enough to swallow the Earth.
Such a tiny black hole would evaporate in 10-42 seconds in a blast of Hawking radiation, a process
discovered by Stephen Hawking in the 1970s. To last long enough even to begin sucking in matter rather
than going off pop, a black hole would have to be many orders of magnitude bigger. According to Cliff
Pickover, author of Black Holes: A Travelers Guide, Even a black hole with the mass of Mount
Everest would have a radius of only about 10-15 metres, roughly the size of an atomic nucleus. Current
thinking is that it would be hard for such a black hole to swallow anything at all - even consuming a
proton or neutron would be difficult.
SDI 2006
GHD
31
AT: Spark
Wipeout 2AC A-Life

( ) A-life is impossible human brains are too complex
Drexler 86 (Engines of Creations Thinking Machines available online @:
http://www.foresight.org/EOC/E0QChapter5.html)
This is the idea of mental materialism - the concept that mind is a special substance, a magical thinking-stuff
somehow beyond imitation, duplication, or technological use. Psychobiologists see no evidence for such a
substance, and find no need for mental materialism to explain the mind. Because the complexity of the
brain lies beyond the full grasp of human understanding, it seems complex enough to embody a mind.
Indeed, if a single person could fully understand a brain, this would make the brain less complex than
that persons mind. If all Earths billions of people could cooperate in simply watching the activity of
one human brain, each person would have to monitor tens of thousands of active synapses
simultaneously - clearly an impossible task. For a person to try to understand the flickering patterns of
the brain as a whole would be five billion times more absurd. Since our brains mechanism so
massively overwhelms our minds ability to grasp it, that mechanism seems complex enough to embody
the mind itself.
( ) Your authors are idiots and its too long a timeframe to vote on
Steven Levy, writer for Macworld, 1992, Artificial Life, p. 41
Given that, there seems but one rationale for ignoring the potential consequences of a-life: the assumption
that it will be an arbitrarily long period before scientists create indisputably living organisms, and
longer still before those organisms pose a serious threat to our well-being, let alone to our survival. The
almost innate skepticism about whether it could happen at all, when combined with the vague feeling that
the entire enterprise has a whiff of the crackpot to it, assures that the alarm over what those scientists
are doing will be minimal.
SDI 2006
GHD
32
AT: Spark
Wipeout 2AC Nanotech

( ) Even if nanotech is feasible, assemblers arent theyre too complex
Lyle Burkhead, nanotech expert, 1999, Nanotechnology without Genies, http://www.geniebusters.org/
3. Calibrating the Universal Assembler: the programmable organism Our starting point is the idea of a selfcontained entity that can make "anything," including copies of itself. In this section it is assumed that the entity makes things by means of
replicating atomic-level machinery. As a first step towards calibration of this idea, try comparing it with other processes that are similar in some ways:
* ants building an ant hill
* an orange tree producing an orange * a cedar tree growing wood to be used for lumber * a mold secreting penicillin * a water purification plant, in which bacteria remove
certain contaminants from the water * an electric eel generating an electric potential * a firefly generating light * a cicada generating sound Here we have replicating entities
using atomic mechanisms to produce certain effects. However, this is a long way from what we want. A cedar tree can make something, plus copies of itself. It can't make any kind of
wood, let alone anything in general. What we want is a general purpose, programmable system. The following hypothetical projects are a closer calibration: * a general-purpose
(programmable) ant colony, which can build any kind of building, tunnel, bridge, engine, etc. * a general-purpose (programmable) orchard, which grows all kinds of fruit in a small
space * a general-purpose (programmable) tree, which grows any specified kind of wood * a general-purpose (programmable) cell, which secretes any specified chemical * a
general-purpose (programmable) hydroponic garden, which produces all the food for a household * a general-purpose (programmable) filter, using bacteria, fungi, and/or green
plants, which can take any ion out of any solution, extract metal from ore, etc. * a general purpose (programmable) energy-generating organism, which can produce whatever kind
of energy you need -- light, electricity, sound, heat, or kinetic energy. Now we have gotten a very good calibration. What I have just described is almost isomorphic to the assembler
that can make anything, including more assemblers. If you ponder these projects slowly enough to get them in focus, you can get an excellent idea of what is going to be involved in
an assembler. However, we still don't have quite what we want. A general purpose, programmable tree can make any kind of wood, plus copies of itself, but that's still a long way from
making anything in general. For a full calibration of a universal assembler, we have to take one more step: we have to combine all these things into one system. How much would
you have to know about ants, their society, their genome, etc., before you could make them programmable and able to build structures to spec? How long would this take? Whatever
Nanites may not physically resemble

ants, but they will have a genome that will be comparable to the genome of an ant, and their society
will be as complex as an ant colony. Creating nanites is isomorphic to creating programmable ants.
Everything that has to be done in one case has to be done in the other. Likewise for all the other projects
on the list. What would be involved in creating a general purpose energy-generating organism? How long
would this take? Creating an assembler will take that long, too, because you will have to do something
that amounts to the same thing. You will have to find ways to generate all kinds of energy at the atomic
level, and incorporate these mechanisms into replicating entities. Your task is isomorphic to the
biologist's task. However, your task requires another step that the biologist doesn't have to worry about:
instead of modifying existing organisms and their cellular machinery to make materials, generate
electricity, and so forth, you are going to use atomic machinery invented de novo, based on Eric
Drexler's diamondoid constructors and replicators. You have to invent the new machinery before you can
even start working on higher-level projects such as programmable ants and trees. Thus, to create a
universal assembler, you have to do everything the biologists have to do in the projects listed above, plus
design a new kind of replicating entity, and all the necessary atomic machinery. After you have
designed the new atomic machinery -- which is going to be as complex as biochemistry -- you still have
a long, long way to go.
the answer is, designing an assembler will require about the same time, because it amounts to the same thing.
( ) No risk of Grey Goo nanotech wont be built that way and safeguards check
Ronald Bailey, Science correspondent @ Reason, ed. Global Warming 2001, Nanotech Negativism, July 4,
http://reason.com/rb/rb070401.shtml
Mooney points to a scenario in which self-replicating nanobots might get out of control and spread
exponentially across the landscape destroying everything in their paths. Nanotechnologists such as K. Eric
Drexler call this the "grey goo" scenario, in which the biosphere is converted by rampaging nanobots into a
grey sludge. But since the inception of nanotechnology theory, analysts have been concerned about this
possible problem and have thought of ways to prevent it. For example, nanobots would be constructed so
that they could not operate without fuels supplied by their manufacturers. Software entrepreneur Ray
Kurzweil is confident that nanotech defenses against uncontrolled replication will be stronger than the
abilities to replicate. Kurzweil cites our current abilities to reduce computer viruses to nuisances, and
argues that humans will be even more vigilant against a technology that could kill if uncontrolled.
Nanotech theorist Robert Freitas has written a study, Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous
Nanoreplicators, with Public Policy Recommendations, which concludes that all "scenarios examined
appear to permit early detection by vigilant monitoring, thus enabling rapid deployment of effective
defensive instrumentalities." Freitas further persuasively argues that dangerous self-replicating nanobots
could not emerge from laboratory accidents, but would have be made on purpose using very
sophisticated technologies that would take years to develop.
SDI 2006
GHD
33
AT: Spark
Wipeout 2AC Aliens

( ) Aliens dont exist the odds of other life in the universe are zero
Marshall Savage, Founder of the Living Universe Foundation, 1994, The Millenial Project, p. 350-351 & 353-355
There are 200 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. How could it be possible that ours is the only one harboring intelligent life? Actually, it goes far beyond that. Not only is our
solar system the only source of intelligent life, it is probably the only source of any kind of life. Not only is our planet the only source of life in this galaxy, it is probably the only
source of life in any galaxy. Hard as it may be to believe or accept, it is likely that our little world is the only speck of Living matter in the entire universe. Those who tend to reflect
on these issues, especially those who believe that life must be a common phenomenon, derive long elaborate formulae to prove their case. They point out there are hundreds of
billions of stars in the Milky Way; of these, some 200 million are similar to the sun; around these other suns orbit 10 million earth-like worlds; life must have evolved on millions of
these worlds; intelligent tool-users must then have developed hundreds of thousands of times; so there must be thousands of civilizations capable of star travel. Carl Sagan, the leading
proponent of this viewpoint, calculates that the Milky Way has been home to no fewer than a billion technical civilizations! When this argument is extrapolated to the universe at
large, the existence of ETs, at least somewhere, seems a virtual certainty. The odds of the Earth being the only living world in the universe are on the order of one in 1018. With such
an overwhelming number of chances, a billion billion Earth-like worlds, Life must have sprung up innumerable times mustnt it? This argument is reasonable enough on its face,
but as soon as speculators leave the realm of astronomy they enter terra incognita, where dwells an inscrutable mystery. No one knows what the odds are that life will evolve given an
earth-like planet around a sun-like star. Sagan rates the chances at one in three. A close examination of the issue indicates that he may be off in his estimate by billions and billions.
The odds against life are so extreme that it is virtually impossible for it to
occur twice in the same universe. That life ever evolved anywhere at all is a miracle of Biblical proportions.
If it wasnt for our manifest presence, the creation of life could be dismissed as a wild fantasy. Generating
animate matter through random chemistry is so unlikely as to be indistinguishable from impossible.
Yet, here we are. Obviously, miracles do happen. But the question is: do they happen twice?
***He Continues***
To generate a strand of Genesis DNA would take 10x360 chemical reactions. That is a completely ridiculous number.
The evolution of life is overwhelmingly improbable.
Writing out such a number is an exercise in futility; it requires hundreds of zeroes. Describing it with words is just about as hopeless; a million billion trillion quadrillion quintillion
sextillion septillion octillion nonillion decillion doesnt even touch it. The only way to describe it is as ten nonillion nonillion googol googol googol. You cant even talk about such
numbers without sounding like your brain has been fused into molten goo. If you persist in thinking about them it certainly will be. Surely, there must be numbers of equal magnitude
available to rescue us from such overwhelming odds. After all, DNA is just a large molecule. So we must be dealing with atomic numbers, and those are always mind boggling
When Life arose, the Earths oceans were, as Carl Sagan suggests, one giant bowl of primordial soup.
The number of chemical reactions going on in that stew must have been incredible. Over billions of years,
any possible combination of DNA could have been cooked upcouldnt it? Well, lets take a look; the
bottom line is always in the numbers. The oceans of the early Earth contained, at most, 1,044 carbon
atoms.665 This sets the upper limit on the possible number of nucleic acid molecules at ~ (Assuming
every atom of carbon in the ocean was locked up in a nucleic acid moleculean unlikely state of affairs.)
The oceans could therefor contain no more than about 1042 nucleotide chains, with an average length of
ten base pairs. If all these nucleotides interacted with each other 100 times per second for ten billion
years, they would undergo 3 X 1,061 reactions. This would still leave them woefully short of the sample
needed to generate a strand of Genesis DNA. To get a self-replicating strand of DNA out of the global
ocean, even if it was thick with a broth of nucleotides, would take ten billion googol googol googol
years. Makes yours eyes spin counter-clockwise doesnt it? But there are billions of stars in the galaxy and
billions of galaxies in the universe. Over time, the right combination would come up somewherewouldnt
it? Assume every star in every galaxy in the entire universe has an Earth-like planet in orbit around it;
and assume every one of those planets is endowed with a global ocean thick with organic gumbo. This
would give us 40,000 billion billion oceanic cauldrons in which to brew up the elixir of life. Now were
getting somewherearent we? In such a universe, where the conditions for the creation of life are
absolutely ideal, it will still take a hundred quadrillion nonillion nonillion googol googol years for the
magic strand to appear. Sheesh! Assuming some radically different form of life, independent of DNA,
doesnt really help. By definition, life forms will always be complex arrangements of matter and/or
energy. This complexity has to arise out of chaos. Therefore, some initial degree of order must first just
happen. Whatever the form of life, its creation is dependent on the same sort of chance event that created
our first strand of Genesis DNA. It doesnt matter what sort of coincidence is involved: the matching of
base pairs, alignment of liquid crystals, or nesting of ammonia vortices; whatever the form of order, it will
be subject to the same laws of probability. Consequently, any form of highly complex, self-replicating
material is just as unlikely to occur as our form. Simply put, living is an unlikely state of affairs. When all of
the fundamental constants underlying the bare existence of the universe are also taken into account, it
becomes all too obvious that life is a sheer impossibility.
right?
SDI 2006
GHD
34
AT: Spark
Wipeout 2AC Strangelets

( ) Strangelets are physically impossible
JoshuahBearman, McSweeneys, June 9, 2000, http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2000/06/09rhic2.html, accessed
3/6/03
The authors of the Review used a similar argument to dispel fears of ravenous strangelets. The thousands of
trillions of high energy collisions that have occurred on the moon's surface have not turned our lone
satellite into a ball of strange matter. In fact, for each of the "speculative disasters," calculations or
empirical comparisons yield astronomical safety factors, which means that the danger is so small that,
according to Tim Hallman, "the word infinitesimal does not even do it justice." Robert Jaffe, one of the
authors of the Review and the world's leading expert on strangelets, says that the probability is
negligible. "It's like worrying that water is suddenly going to flow uphill," he said. "It's not impossible,
but it's incredibly improbable."
( ) No chance of strangelets 1 in 50 million shouldnt justify extinction

Scientific American June 21, 2004 Doom and Gloom by 2100
In July 1999 Scientific American ran a letter by Princeton University physicist Frank Wilczek, who pointed
to "a speculative but quite respectable possibility" that the Brookhaven National Laboratory's Relativistic
Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) could produce particles called strangelets.These subatomic oddities could grow
by consuming nearby ordinary matter. Soon after, a British newspaper posited that a "big bang machine"-that is, RHIC--could destroy the planet. The ensuing media flurry led then Brookhaven director John H.
Marburger to pull together an outside panel of physicists, who concluded that the strangelet scenario
was remote, about a one-in-50-million chance of killing six billion people. (Another panel, convened by
CERN near Geneva, drew a similar conclusion.)
( ) The worlds leading expert on Strangelets says theres no risk

Strangelets are chunks of matter made from strange quarks as well as the usual up and down types of
ordinary matter. It might be possible to make them in particle accelerators like RHIC. The risk is that a
stran~relet might consume nuclei of ordinary matter and convert them into more strange matter, transmuting
the entire Earth into a strange-matter planet. But having raised this appalling prospect, Wilczek quickly
dismissed it. And quite rightly, says the worlds leading expert on strangelets, Robert Jaffe of (MIT) the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Strangelets are almost certainly not stable, and if they are, they
almost certainly cannot be produced at RHIC, he says. And even if they were produced at RHIC, they
almost certainly have positive charge and would be screened from further interactions by a
surrounding cloud of electrons. Every one of these steps in the argument would have to be flawed for
strangelets to be a risk.
SDI 2006
GHD
35
AT: Spark
Wipeout 2AC Time Travel

Lack of any evidence of time travelers illustrates time travel is impossible
Swartz, 1993 (http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/time_travel1.htm)
But the real problem has always been with the notion of backward-directed time travel. Is accelerated
backward time travel physically possible? There is a certain amount of empirical evidence that it is
not. The best of this evidence is simply the fact that, so far as we can tell, no one has traveled to the
here and now from any time or place in the future. Of course such evidence is not conclusive: it may be
that future generations will have destroyed themselves in a war or environmental disaster; or it may be that
they will have enacted legislation with sufficiently severe sanctions and policing to prevent time travel to our
century; etc. Nonetheless, the very fact that there are no visitors here and now from the future strongly
suggests that at no time in the future will a means be found to permit traveling backward in time. And
the fact that it will never be done in turn suggests that it is physically impossible.
Time travel wouldnt allow changes in the past:

Swartz, 1993 (http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/time_travel1.htm)
The application of these logical principles for time travel becomes clear. If one travels into the past, then
one does not change the past; one does in the past only what in fact happened. If you are alive today,
having grown up in the preceding years, then you were not murdered. If, then, you or anyone else
travels into the past, then that time traveler simply does not murder you. What does that time traveler
do in the past? From our perspective, looking backward in time, that traveler does whatever in fact
happened, and that - since you are alive today - does not include murdering you.
SDI 2006
GHD
36
AT: Spark
Wipeout 2AC Quantum Vacuum/Zero-Point Energy

( ) Theres no such thing as Quantum Vacuum Mining all legitimate scientists think your
authors are crackpots
Philip Yam, Scientific American, Dec. 1997, Exploiting Zero-Point Energy,
http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM.html
That conceit is not shared by the majority of physicists; some even regard such optimism as
pseudoscience that could leech funds from legitimate research. The conventional view is that the energy in
the vacuum is minuscule. in fact, were it infinite, the nature of the universe would be vastly different:
you would not be able to see in a straight line beyond a few kilometers. "The vacuum has some mystique
about it," remarks Peter W. Milonni, a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory who wrote a text on the
subject in 1994 called The Quantum Vacuum. "One has to be really careful about taking the concept too
naively." Steve K. Lamoreaux, also at Los Alamos, is harsher: "The zero-point-energy community is more
successful at advertising and selfpromotion than they are at carrying out bona fide scientific research."
( ) Your authors are total kooks no legit scientists believe in zero point energy
Such disagreements in science are not unusual, especially considering how little is really known about zeropoint energy. But those would-be utility moguls who think tapping zero-point energy is a worthwhile
pursuit irritate some mainstream scientists. "I was rather dismayed at the attention from what I consider
a kook community," Lamoreaux says of his celebrity status among zero-point aficionados after publishing
his Casimir effect result. "It trivializes and abuses my work." More galling, though, is that these
"pseudoscientists secure funding, perhaps governmental, to carry on with their research," he charges.
Puthoff's institute receives a little government money but gets most of its funds from contracts with private
firms. Others are backed more explicitly by public money. This past August the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration sponsored a meeting called the "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Workshop."
According to participants, zero-point energy became a high priority among those trying to figure out which
"breakthroughs" should be pursued. The propulsion application depends on a speculation put forth in 1994
by Puthoff, Bernhard Haisch of Lockheed Pale Alto Research Laboratory and Alfonso Rueda of California
State University at Long Beach. They suggested that inertia--the resistance that objects put up when they are
accelerated--stems from the drag effects of moving through the zero-point field. Because the zeropoint field
can be manipulated in quantum experiments, Puthoff reasons, it should be possible to lessen an object's
inertia and hence, for a rocket, reduce the fuel burden. Puthoff and his colleagues have been trying to prove
this inertia-origin hypothesis--a sensitive pendulum should be able to detect a zero-point-energy "wake" left
by a moving object--but Puthoff says they have not managed to isolate their system well enough to do so.
More conventional scientists decried the channeling of NASA funds to a meeting where real science was
lacking. "We hardly talked about the physics" of the proposals, complained Milonni, adding that during
one of the breakout sessions "there was a guy talking about astral projection." Certainly, there should be
room for far-out, potentially revolutionary ideas, but not at the expense of solid science. "One has to keep
an open mind, but the concepts I've seen so far would violate energy conservation," Milonni concludes.
In sizing up zero-point-energy schemes, it may be best to keep in mind the old caveat emptor: if it
sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
( ) Even if Zero Point Energy exists, you cant extract it no risk of a chain reaction
Demonstrating the existence of zero-point energy is one thing; extracting useful amounts is another.
Puthoff's institute, which he likens to a mini Bureau of Standards, has examined about 10 devices over the
past 10 years and found nothing workable.
SDI 2006
GHD
37
AT: Spark
Wipeout 2AC Maya

( ) Mayan calendar is wrong and even if its not, it just means 2012 is happy hippie
utopia, not the end of the universe
Maarten Keulemans, Science and Tech Journalist, Exit Mundi, 2006, http://www.exitmundi.nl/exitmundi.htm
But actually, the Maya's never predicted anything concrete about 2012. That may have something to do
with our ill knowledge about Maya culture: when the Spanish ransacked the land, they burnt literally every
Maya book they could find. Only a handful of scriptures survived. And in them, there's not a clue about
what happens when the Maya calendar ends. So what awaits us in 2012 basically is an open question.
And as with so many open questions, countless doom preachers, semi-prophets and other crackpots pop up to
provide an answer. The interpretation you hear most: 2012 will mark the coming of a new, glorious age
of wisdom and peace. It will be Age Of Aquarius at last, with a world full of peace, love and
understanding. The reasoning behind this is actually not that stupid. The Maya's didn't really believed in
endings: their conception of time was circular, with every end being the beginning of something new. So,
2012 shouldn't be an exception. Also, the Maya's had a highly developed philosophy of the cosmos. They
saw the cosmos as the true mother of things. Consequently, the Maya's thought the cosmos is all around us,
and within us. Every plant, every animal, every man is sheer Cosmos. So, New Age philosophers say,
December 21st 2012 will be the day on which this inner cosmos is reconnected to the divine outer cosmos.
The Sun will mount its unique position to form a `gateway' between the Universe and the souls of every
living creature on Earth. Our linear conception of time will crumble, and with it, fear and hatred will vanish.
It will be purification at it's very best, when everyone is soaked in cosmic understanding and divine
love. So there it is: on December 20th, you'll kick your dog, yell at your spouse and cheat on cards. But a
day later, you'll be calmed down into a peaceful dude with nothing but love and understanding to guide you
in life. Even though it's mid-winter, it'll be summer of love for all humanity. Other doomsayers foresee doom
and destruction. December 21st will be the day the Earth will be destroyed. Some think it will be because of
some nuclear war, some say it will be because it's biblical judgment day. Even others take the ending of the
Maya calendar more literally, and claim the Universe will just cease to exist. Zzzzp!, gone. There's
something to be said in favor of such sinister scenario's, too. The Maya divided their Long Count into five
lumps of time, called Great Cycles. And every cycle had a well defined end. For example, after period
number one, a Jaguar came by and ate everyone on Earth. Well, it's the Maya saying this, not me! The
second cycle ended in air, the third in fire, the fourth in flood. And what about the last period, the stretch of
time we're in? The Earth will be destroyed by earthquakes, is the interpretation some scholars give to the
etchy-sketchy remains of the Maya culture. That needs emphasizing, because the last word on Maya
timekeeping isn't said yet: almost every year new books on the issue are published. So, what are we to make
of it all? Will it be time's up in 2012? Well: we at Exit Mundi wouldn't bet on it. Don't forget: there are
many, many religions predicting some kind of end to the world. And the Maya prediction attracts a lot
of attention now, merely because their end date is so well-defined, and because the Maya Deadline is only
a couple of time-ticks away. And what about that awesome phenomenon of the Sun sitting in the heart of the
Tree of Life? Well, that happened before. The Sun passes the Tree every 25,800 years. That's a lot of years,
but since the Earth exists for an astonishing 4,5 billion years, the Earth survived the `divine event' more
than 150,000 times already! What's more, the last six times the phenomenon occurred, modern humans
already walked the planet. Obviously, it didn't have much effect on our spiritual lives. It certainly didn't stop
the Spanish from butchering some 800,000 Maya's in the sixteenth century.
SDI 2006
GHD
38
AT: Spark
Ext Infinite Responsibility

Our responsibility to the other transcends death - it has no limit and establishes a basis for
effective politics
Emmanuel Levinas, professor of philosophy, Otherwise Than Being Or Beyond Essence, 1978, pg. xiv
This also means that I am not only answerable for what I initiated in a project or commitment of my will. I
am responsible for the situation in which I find myself, and for the existence in which I find myself. To
be responsible is always to have to answer for a situation that was in place before I came on the scene.
Responsibility is a bond between my present and what came to pass before it. In it is effected a passive
synthesis of time that precedes the time put together by retentions and protentions. I am responsible for
processes in which I find myself, and which have a momentum by which they go on beyond what I willed or
what I can steer. Responsibility cannot be limited to the measure of what I was able to foresee and
willed. In fact real action in the world is always action in which the devil has his part, in which the force of
initiative has force only inasmuch as it espouses things that have a force of their own. I am responsible for
processes that go beyond the limits of my foresight and intention, that carry on even when I am no longer
adding my sustaining force to them and even when I am no longer there. Serious responsibility recognizes
itself to be responsible for the course of things beyond ones own death. My death will mark the limit of
my force without limiting my responsibility. There is in this sense an infinity that opens in
responsibility, not as a given immensity of its horizons, but as the process by which its bounds do not
cease to extend an infinition of infinity. The bond with the alterity of the other is in this infinity. I am
answerable before the other in his alterity responsible before all the others for all the others. To be
responsible before the other is to make of my subsistence the support of his order and his needs. His alterity
commands and solicits, his approach contests and appeals; I am responsible before the other for the other.
I am responsible before the other in his alterity, that is, not answerable for his empirical and mundane being
only, but for the alterity of his initiatives, for the imperafive appeal with which he addresses me. I am
responsible for the responsible moves of another, for the very impact and trouble with which he
approaches me. To be responsible before another is to answer to the appeal by which he approaches. It
is to put oneself in [their] his place, not to observe oneself from without, but to bear the burden of his
existence and supply for its wants. I am responsible for the very faults of another, for his deeds and misdeeds.
The condition of being hostage is an authentic figure of responsibility.
SDI 2006
GHD
39
AT: Spark
Ext Antimatter/Black Holes

( ) Billions of natural particle collisions disprove
JoshuahBearman, McSweeneys, June 9, 2000, http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2000/06/09rhic2.html, accessed
3/6/03
In the lower vacuum state, we would disappear. Matter as we know it could not exist; there would be no
electrons, protons or neutronsnone of the particles that we are made of. Coleman and De Luccia wrote that
this would be the "ultimate ecological catastrophe." When asked, Piet Hut said, "words fail me to describe
what this would mean. It would be incredible." In 1982, Piet Hut and Martin Rees published a paper in
which they studied the problem of whether a lower vacuum state could be triggered by a new generation
of particle accelerators. They concluded that it was unlikely, because many billions of naturally
occurring cosmic ray collisions in inter-stellar space produce similar or greater energy collisions than
those in accelerators, and none of them have yet triggered a vacuum instability. The fact that we are still
here, they argued, is proof that these experiments will be safe. And the evidence keeps mounting: Since
Hut and Rees's study, new particle accelerators like the Tevatron at the Fermilab complex in Illinois have
operated for years, yielding important new scientific discoveries without any apocalyptic mishaps.
( ) No risk from anti-matter - cosmic rays release 100 million times more energy, and the
universe is still here
But dont heave a sigh of relief just yet. The Brookhaven scientists have also considered an even more
alarming possibility than the destruction of the Earth. Could their mighty machine trigger the collapse of the
quantum vacuum? Quantum theory predicts that the Universe is filled with a seething melee of so-called
vacuum energy. That might seem an urlikely threat to civilisation. After all, its simply the average energy of
the mess of particles that flit in and out of existence all around us. As the Universe expanded and cooled, that
vacuum energy dropped down to the lowest possible level. Or did it ? What if the Universe is still hung up
in an unstable state ? Then a iolt of the right amount of energy in a small space might trigger the collapse of
the iuantum vacuum state. A wave of destruction would travel outwards at the speed of light, altering the
Universe in bizarre ways. It would be rather bad news for us, at least: ordinary matter would cease to exist. In
1995, Paul Dixon, a psychologist at the University of Hawaii, picketed Fermilab in Illinois because he feared
that its Tevatron collider might trigger a quantum vacuum collapse. Then again in 1998, on a late night talk
radio show, he warned that the collider could blow the Universe to smithereens. But particle physicists
have this covered. In 1983, Martin Rees of Cambridge University and Piet Hut of the Institute of Advanced
Study, Princeton, pointed out that cosmic rays (high-energy charged particles such as protons) have been
smashing into things in our cosmos for aeons. Many of these collisions release energies hundreds of
millions of times higher than anything RHIC can muster - and yet no disastrous vacuum collapse has
occurred. The Universe is still here. This argument also scjuashes any fears about black holes or strange
matter. If it were possible for an accelerator to create such a doomsday obiect, a cosmic ray would have
done so long ago. We are very grateful for cosmic rays, says Jaffe.
SDI 2006
GHD
40
AT: Spark
Ext A-Life
( ) A-Life development is impossible
Isaac Asimov, visionary genius, 1990, First Contact, p. 26-27
But computers do change, if not as a result of their own inner capacities,. then because human beings are
forever building new ones of improved design. Will we ever be the agents for the evolution of computers that
are examples of true artificial intelligence? I doubt it. One must first understand the true complexity of
the human brain as it has evolved over three and a half billion years. The human brain consists of 10 billion
neurons and 90 billion auxiliary cells. No computer, either now or in the foreseeable future, is going to
contain 100 billion switching units. And even if a computer were to contain so many units, the neurons of
the brain are interconnected with extraordinary complexity, each being connected to dozens or thousands
of others in a manner that passes our understanding. Computers dont have even the beginnings of
such complexity. And even if we learn to duplicate the complexity, too, then the fact remains that the units
in computers are switches that move from on to off and back to on, and nothing more. The neurons of
the brain, on the other hand, arc enormously complex structures of macromolecules of various types whose
functions we do not entirely understand.
( ) If A-Life does evolve, it wont kill everything

Steven Levy, writer for Macworld, 1992, Artificial Life, p. 41
The answer to that question lay in perhaps the most disturbing speculation of the SRS Concept Team: that
our artificial life machines would be symbiotically linked to us as no less than equal partners, coevolving
through the eons. Humankind, they asserted, was either a biological way station in the grand scheme of
things or else an evolutionary dead end. It was only through these self-replicating systemsin a very
real intellectual and material sense our offspring, they saidthat the fruitless latter option could be
avoided. While acknowledging the possibility that these silicon-and-steel progeny might render humans, as
well as other forms of carbon-based life, obsolete, the authors chose to view the situation more optimistically
(no surprise since they were, after all, advocating that we begin to build these machines). They envisioned a
near-eternal coexistence where, for the price of merging itself into a larger stem, mankind could achieve
immortality for itself.
SDI 2006
GHD
41
AT: Spark
Ext Nanotech
No risk of gray goo No incentive for MNT to be built that way
Chris Phoenix dir. Research @ center for responsible nanotech, MS Computer Sci Stanford, and Eric Drexler
Nanotech God, PhD MIT 2004, Safe Exponential Manufacturing, June, Nanotechnology 15
The above considerations indicate that a molecular manufacturing system, even if autoproductive, would
have little resemblance to a machine capable of runaway replication. The earliest MNT fabrication
systems will be microscopic, but simplicity and efficiency will favour devices that use specialized
feedstocks and are directed by a stream of instructions supplied by an external computer. These
systems will not even be self-replicators, because they will lack self-descriptions. As manufacturing
systems are scaled up, these same engineering considerations will favour immobile, macroscopic systems of
fabricators that again use specialized feedstocks. An autoproductive manufacturing system would not have to
gather or process random chemicals. A device capable of runaway replication would have to contain far
more functionality in a very small package. Although the possibility of building such a device does not
appear to contradict any physical law, a nanofactory simply would not have the functionality required. Thus,
there appears to be no technological or economic motive for producing a self-contained manufacturing
system with mobility, or a built-in self-description, or the chemical processing system that would be
required to convert naturally occurring materials into feedstocks suitable for molecular manufacturing
systems. In developing and using molecular manufacturing, avoiding runaway replication will not be a
matter of avoiding accidents or mutations, but of avoiding the deliberate construction of something
dangerous. Suggestions in fiction (Crichton 2002) and the popular science press (Smalley 2001) that
autoproductive nanosystems would necessarily be microscopic, uncontrollable things are contradicted by this
analysis. And a machine like a desktop printer is, to say the least, unlikely to go wild, replicate,
selforganize into intelligent systems, and eat people.
( ) Nanotech assemblers are impossible too complex to program objects

Lyle Burkhead, nanotech expert, 1999, Nanotechnology without Genies, http://www.geniebusters.org/
The thing is, there is a long learning curve for any program capable of making anything. There are thick books one
must read before using AutoCad. It takes a while to get started with such software, even for someone with considerable
sophistication. I have been using computers for a long time, but I couldn't just sit down and start using a 3D modeling
program. It would probably take me at least a month to reach fluency in 3D Studio Max, and longer for AutoCad. It takes
years to learn all the nuances of such programs, even for professionals who use the software every day. This will
also be true of a computer with a box attached. Adding that extra peripheral isn't going to make it any easier to use
the computer. To make an object with the box, you still have to go through all the steps you went through with 3D
Studio Max to make an animated model of it. Plus, there will no doubt be a learning curve for the box itself. If you
wanted the box to make a battleship, you couldn't just say "Make me a battleship." You would have to describe it
in detail. Imagine using AutoCad to design a battleship, or using 3D Studio Max to make an animated model of it (the
whole thing, not just the exterior). The paperwork involved in designing and building a battleship weighs as much as
the ship itself. So, even if you had the extra peripheral that could make objects instead of just printing pictures of them,
you still wouldn't have a genie machine that would give you whatever you ask for with no effort on your part.
Please don't tell me that the box contains a Genie who already knows what a battleship is, and it can read your
mind and fill in all the details, and make the exact ship you want, without specific instructions. (Assuming you
know exactly what you want, without thinking the problem through.) If you said to your computer, "Make me a 3D
animation of a battleship," what would happen? Anything? If the computer by itself can't make an animation of a
battleship (the whole thing down to the last detail), then it isn't going to be able to make the ship either . Not unless you
tell it how. Let's take a much simpler example. A few years ago, I needed to get into my NeXT Cube for some reason. There is a tool that comes with the
computer, but I couldn't find it. It's kind of like a screwdriver, in that it fits into a hole and you turn it, but it's not an ordinary flat-head screwdriver or a
Phillips screwdriver. I'm not sure what it's called. I spent most of the afternoon going to hardware stores, and I bought a couple of things, but when I tried to
use them, they didn't work. Fortunately I eventually found the original tool at home. If I had a box, this would be the perfect occasion to use it. But I
couldn't just say "make me a screwdriver." Part of the problem is that I don't know the exact name for this thing, and even if I did, they probably come in
different shapes and sizes. So I would have to use some kind of modeling software to draw it. I would have to crank up a CAD program that I seldom or
never use, and draw a pattern for the box to use as a template. But, I don't remember exactly what the tool looks like... Of course, I could eventually find a
way to do it. But it would be a huge hassle. And that's just a screwdriver, never mind a battleship. If you look at what would actually be involved in using
the box to make something, it turns out that programming a nanosystem amounts to the same thing as programming a
computer. There is nothing magical or genie-like about it.
SDI 2006
GHD
42
AT: Spark
Ext Aliens
( ) No aliens exist
Eric Drexler, Ph.D. in molecular nanotechnology from MIT, chairman of the board of directors of Foresight
Institute. Engines of Creation, 1987 http://foresight.org/EOC/EOC_Chapter_10.html#section06of09
The idea that humanity is alone in the visible universe is consistent with what we see in the sky and with
what we know about the origin of life. No bashful aliens are needed to explain the facts. Some say that
since there are so many stars, there must surely be other civilizations among them. But there are fewer stars
in the visible universe than there are molecules in a glass of water. Just as a glass of water need not
contain every possible chemical (even downstream from a chemical plant), so other stars need not harbor
civilizations.
( ) Even if aliens exist, they shouldnt affect your decision calculus well have the only
comparative evidence on this question
Marshall Savage, Founder of the Living Universe Foundation, 1994, The Millenial Project, p. 356-357
Whether or not we are truly alone in the universe is really immaterial. We can debate the issue as an
academic exercise, but it wont change one overwhelming fact: As far as we know, we are alone. And until
we find out otherwise, it behooves us to proceed as if we were the only intelligent species in the whole
space/time continuum. This point of view should have a profound effect on our race. It is easy to gaze up at
the night sky in wonder, and feel ones self to be an insignificant fly-speck. But it can be a little terrifying to
look out on endless parsecs and realize that you are one of the most important things in it. Its enough to
make your panic glasses go black. Being a solo act requires us to carry some very heavy baggage. Our
responsibility to the Cosmos is absolute. In a very real sense, we must carry the weight of the universe on
our shoulders. We are not just an insignificant species of semi-intelligent apes, charged only with the welfare
of ourselves, or even of our little planet. Rather, we are the sole source of consciousness in an otherwise dead
cosmos. It is all up to us. If we fail, Life, as a phenomenon in the universe, fails with us. Life never happened
anywhere else before and it is unlikely to ever happen anywhere else again. If you believe in Life, if you
believe in flowers and grass and trees, birds and whales and people; if you believe in children, then you must
bear this Titanic burden. You must recognize yourself as one of the Olympians, one of but a tiny handful of
the god-beings who inhabit this universe. For better or worse, we must accept the awesome implications of
our place in the scheme of thingsat the pinnacle of creation. It is our task to carry the torch of Promethean
fire out into the frozen void, there to kindle the green flames of a billion billion living worlds. We few, we
happy few, must decide the destiny of a universe.
SDI 2006
GHD
43
AT: Spark
Ext Quantum Vacuum/Zero-Point Energy

( ) ZPE isnt infinite, even if it can be accessed wont destroy the universe
But just because equations produce an infinity does not mean that an infinity exists in any practical
sense. In fact, physicists quite often "renormalize" equations to get rid of infinities, so that they can ascribe
physical meaning to their numbers. An example is the calculation of the electron's mass from theoretical
principles, which at face value leads to an unrealistic, infinite mass. The same kind of mathematical sleightof-hand might need to be done for vacuum-energy calculations. "Somehow the notion that the energy is
infinite is too naive," Milonni says. In fact, several signs indicate that the amount of energy in the
vacuum isn't worth writing home about. Lamoreaux's experiment could roughly be considered to have
extracted 10^-15 joule. That paltry quantity would seem to be damning evidence that not much can be
extracted from empty space. But Puthoff counters that Casimir plates are macroscopic objects. What is
needed for practical energy extraction are many plates, say, some 10^23 of them. That might be possible with
systems that rely on small particles, such as atoms. "What you lose in energy per interaction, you gain in the
number of interactions;" he asserts.
( ) Cant Quantum Vacuum mine zero point energy is impossible to manipulate. Our
author is, like, qualified.
Matt Visser, Scientific American, Math Prof @ Victoria, 9-1997,
http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~visser/general.html#what-zpe
In summary, there is no doubt that the ZPE, vacuum energy and Casimir effect are physically real. Our
ability to manipulate these quantities is limited but in some cases technologically interesting. But the
free-lunch crowd has greatly exaggerated the importance of the ZPE. Notions of mining the ZPE
should therefore be treated with extreme skepticism.

GH D Spark Answers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GH D Spark Answers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SDI 2006

Spark 2AC General

Spark 2AC Extinction

( ) Even if some people survive, civilization will collapse, causing extinction

Spark 2AC Escalation

( ) Nuclear war will escalate -- Russian Dead Hand

( ) Nuclear war will escalate alliances, proliferation, and accidents

Spark 2AC Firebreak

Spark 2AC No Mindset Shift

Spark 2AC Immoral

( ) Dehumanization is the worst impact

Spark 2AC Space

Spark 2AC Bioweapons

( ) Even one use of bioweapons can cause extinction

Spark 2AC Environment

( ) Extinction evidence is gender modified

Spark 2AC Ozone

Spark 2AC Monoculture

Spark 2AC Disease

( ) Even limited war is catastrophic Radiation, Water contamination, Agriculture loss,

Even limited nuclear war kills everyone

Ext Extinction AT: Southern Hemisphere

( ) Countries dont need to get directly hit theyd just starve

Ext Extinction AT: Hiroshima/Nagasaki

Ext Extinction AT: Shelters

Ext No Mindset Shift

Ext No Mindset Shift

( ) Even a limited attack overwhelms medical infrastructure, causing major disease

Wipeout 2AC General

my being at home, have these not also been the usurpation

Levinas says; "it is inseparable from a consciousness of justice and injustice"

Wipeout 2AC General

Wipeout 2AC General

Wipeout 2AC Overpop

Wipeout 2AC Antimatter/Black Holes

Wipeout 2AC A-Life

Wipeout 2AC Nanotech

Nanites may not physically resemble

Wipeout 2AC Aliens

Wipeout 2AC Strangelets

( ) No chance of strangelets 1 in 50 million shouldnt justify extinction

( ) The worlds leading expert on Strangelets says theres no risk

Wipeout 2AC Time Travel

Time travel wouldnt allow changes in the past:

Wipeout 2AC Quantum Vacuum/Zero-Point Energy

Wipeout 2AC Maya

Ext Infinite Responsibility

Ext Antimatter/Black Holes

( ) If A-Life does evolve, it wont kill everything

( ) Nanotech assemblers are impossible too complex to program objects

computer. There is nothing magical or genie-like about it.

Ext Quantum Vacuum/Zero-Point Energy

You might also like