spark debate

LHS 2013 Spark CPVL Negative

1/111

SPARK CP

The status of the CP is unconditional; You could optionally change the actor to Russia (recommended)

SPARK endorsed by the popular music groups Bee Gees 77Bee Gees; Grammy Award for Album of the Year, Grammy Award for Producer of the Year, Non-Classical, Grammy Legend Award, Grammy Award for Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal – Badasses; 1977[“Stayin’ Alive”; http://www.elyrics.net/read/b/bee-gees-lyrics/staying-alive-lyrics.html] VL

Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother you're stayin' alive, stayin' aliveFeel the city breakin and everybody shakin' and we’re stayin' alive, stayin' aliveAh, ha, ha, ha, stayin' alive, stayin' aliveAh, ha, ha, ha, stayin' aliveeeeeeeeeeee

SPARK has diverse solvency advocatesRammstein 04 –Industrial Metal - The epitome of badass

Weiter, weiter ins VerderbenWir müssen leben bis wir sterben[…]Aus den Wolken tropft ein ChorKriecht sich in das kleine OhrKomm hier, bleib hierWir sind gut zu dirKomm hier, bleib hierWir sind Brüder dir

Der Vater hält das Kind jetzt festHat es sehr an sich gepresstBemerkt nicht dessen AtemnotDoch die Angst kennt kein ErbarmenSo der Vater mit den ArmenDrückt die Seele aus dem KindDiese setzt sich auf den Wind und singt:

Komm hier, bleib hierWir sind gut zu dirKomm hier, bleib hierWir sind Brüder dir

http://www.elyrics.net/read/b/bee-gees-lyrics/staying-alive-lyrics.html


2/111SPARK CP.....................................................................................................................................................1

1NC Shell...................................................................................................................................................3

Ob. 1: A Storm is Brewing....................................................................................................................4

Ob. 2: The Salvation From Our Sins.....................................................................................................9

Ob. 3: The Garden of Eden..................................................................................................................15

***Extensions***....................................................................................................................................17

SQ Destruction → Ecocide..................................................................................................................18

Nuclear War Inevitable........................................................................................................................26

Global Nuclear War k/2 Save Biosphere.............................................................................................29

Post-Nuke War/Victor.........................................................................................................................35

Synarchic Gov......................................................................................................................................40

Minimal Regret Solves........................................................................................................................44

Caldwell’s Résumé..............................................................................................................................54

***Answers to:***..................................................................................................................................70

A2: Perm – Do both/Plan then CP.......................................................................................................71

A2: Perm – Do the CP.........................................................................................................................72

A2: Perm – Do CP then Plan...............................................................................................................73

A2: International Fiat Bad...................................................................................................................74

A2: Neg Fiat Bad.................................................................................................................................75

A2: Caldwell Crazy..............................................................................................................................76

A2: Caldwell Racist.............................................................................................................................77

A2: We Save The Planet With Our Discourse.....................................................................................79

A2: Immorality.....................................................................................................................................81

A2: Escalation......................................................................................................................................83

A2: Nuclear War → Authoritarianism.................................................................................................84

A2: Nuclear War → Extinction...........................................................................................................86

A2: Nuclear Fallout/Winter.................................................................................................................88

A2: No Recovery.................................................................................................................................90

A2: Life ↓ after CP...............................................................................................................................91

A2: Energy Shortage............................................................................................................................93

A2: Demographic Transition...............................................................................................................95

A2: GW Good......................................................................................................................................96

A2: GW nonexistent..........................................................................................................................100

A2: Eco-optimism..............................................................................................................................103

A2: No Mindset Shift.........................................................................................................................105

A2: Democracy Best..........................................................................................................................107


3/111

1NC ShellText: The United States federal government should instigate a low-intensity nuclear war to establish a minimal-regret society of approximately 10 million people as per the recommendations of Caldwell. We claim the rights to clarification and fiat.

*Most cards have been gender edited


4/111

Ob. 1: A Storm is Brewing

A. Loss of biodiversity and mass extinction is directly caused by humyn consumption, economic activity, and pollution Caldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “The End of the World, and the New World Order”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm; March 6th] VL

The state of the world is disastrous. The planet is currently experiencing the greatest mass extinction of species since the time of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, and it is being caused solely by humynkind’s massive numbers and industrial activity. Most of the species extinction is being caused by rampant destruction of forests and wildlife habitat. In other cases, species are being deliberately singled out for destruction, as in the case of rhinoceros horn (for Yemeni dagger handles), or tigers (for Chinese

medicine), or whales (for Japanese whale-meat shops). Industrial gasses are poisoning the atmosphere to such an extent that the ozone layer that protects all biological life from extreme radiation is being destroyed. These gasses are contributing to global warming. Signs of global warming are dramatic and ubiquitous. Humynkind’s large numbers and industrial activity are causing such great changes to the atmosphere that it is conceivable

that all life on the planet’s surface could be extinguished in a relatively short time. Apart from the possibility that present humyn numbers and activity risk catastrophic destruction of the planet’s biosphere, the humyn species is at the very least causing a tremendous change in the planet’s biodiversity. Of the estimated 5-30 million species on the planet’s surface, an estimated 30,000 are being exterminated every year. The naturalist Edward O. Wilson has estimated that if the current rate of extinction continues, half the Earth’s plant and animal species will disappear by the end of the twenty-first century. With each passing year, the world becomes a less and less varied and interesting place to be. With each passing year, humynkind is disturbing to a greater degree the balance of nature in the biosphere in which it evolved over millions of years, increasing the risk of precipitating major planetary changes and its own extinction. For details on the current state of the world, refer to the annual World watch Institute

publication, State of the World, or the World Resources Institute’s annual publication, World Resources. In summary, humynkind’s large numbers and industrial activity are causing the extinction of large numbers of other species, and could lead quickly to the biological death of the planet. This destruction began with the advent of modern technology several centuries ago, and accelerated tremendously with the advent of the petroleum age. The humyn population continues to grow by about 1.3 - 1.4 percent a year, and economic activity (industrial production) is increasing by about three percent per year. Ecologically diverse forests are being destroyed at the rate of 16 million hectares per year. The pace of the destruction is relentless.

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm


5/111B. The current system is exacerbating the environmental problem and justifies it through the competitiveness theoryCaldwell 2kCaldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2000[Joseph George; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SomeObsns4.pdf; Dec 25th] VL

11. Francis Fukuyama (in his book The End of History and the Last Humyn) argues that no governmental system can long survive once it has lost its legitimacy. The current planetary governmental system is failing to address the pressing issues that threaten the planet's biological existence. The liberal democracies of the world, with their emphasis on uncontrolled humyn population growth and unfettered economic activity, have plunged the planet into an environmental and ecological crisis of unprecedented proportions. Their policies and actions are ruining the planet and are jeopardizing the existence not only of humynkind but of all living species. A liberal democracy is a fabulous form of government for enabling the

individual to achieve his full potential and a rich, fulfilling life, but it can continue to thrive only in a lowpopulation, energy-rich environment. Once the population's industrial activity reaches the point at which it starts causing planetary-scale changes in the biosphere, the system is no longer viable. The current global system of 229 politically independent economies all champing at the bit to outproduce each other is ruining the planet. Under the current system, the planet is racing to oblivion in a frenzy of economic activity. The global system of independent industrial nations jeopardizes the planet's biological existence, and has therefore lost legitimacy as a viable form of planetary government. To avoid a ruined planet requires a governmental framework that addresses the serious problem that the planet faces. A single planetary government is required. 12. This web site does not advocate the use of full-scale nuclear war to solve the population / species-extinction / environment problem. Nuclear war is not a good solution -- it is a terrible solution -- but it may be the most likely solution, for the many reasons discussed above. What makes the problem so intractable is "We have met the enemy, and it is us!" The book Can America Survive? at Internet web site http://www.foundation website.org discusses the preceding concepts in greater detail. If you agree that a nuclear-war solution does indeed appear to be a likely result of the overpopulation problem, let us know what you would do to prepare for and respond to its occurrence. If you disagree that nuclear war appears to be the only viable solution to saving the planet’s biodiversity, please let us know your proposed solution.

http://www.foundation/

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SomeObsns4.pdf


6/111C. And with the advent of agriculture and industrialization humyn population began to increase exponentially causing more damage Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

The root cause of all of the environmental and ecological problems facing the planet is twofold: the very large humyn population, and the extraordinarily high levels of toxic waste produced by industrial activity. The planet can and has harbored a large number of humyn beings for very long periods in the past. It has been estimated that the humyn population has been approximately 2-20 million for the past hundred thousand years, while humynkind existed in a hunting gathering mode, increasing to about 200-300 million after the advent of the agricultural revolution (10,000 years ago).

Humyn population growth is often depicted in a famous curve called “Deevy’s curve,” after the humyn who first presented it (Edward S. Deevy, “The Humyn Population,” Scientific American, vol. 203, no. 9, September 1960, pp. 195-204).

This curve is shown, for example, on p. 95 of Cohen’s How Many People Can the Earth Support, or p. 101 of Piel’s Only One World. It shows three main population surges: one when humyn invented weapons and tools (three million years ago); one when humyn developed agriculture (about 10,000 years ago); and one when the industrial revolution began, less than 500 year ago. The three levels of population for these “surges” are global populations of about 2-20 million humyn beings (preagricultural Stone Age), 200-300 million (preindustrial agriculture), and the present time. The population surge for the present time has not yet leveled off, but it will, very soon. The total land area of Earth is 148.9 million square kilometers, of which 14.2 million is Antarctica and 11 million is desert. This leaves about 125 million square kilometers of habitable land. A total population size of say, 5 million, hence represents a density of about 4 people every 100 square kilometers. At that low level of population, with no industrial activity, humynkind did not materially affect the balance of nature. (The term “balance of nature” refers to the fact that all of the waste products produced by one species are food for other species and the overall system is in a state of relative equilibrium (slow evolutionary change).) The net production of unprocessed waste is effectively zero. The only significant ecological change attributed to humynkind over the millions of years of his hunter-gatherer existence was the extinction of most large mammals (mammoths, mastodons, giant camels, and the like) at the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago, and there is even doubt that humynkind accomplished that. When humynkind began to use agriculture, about 10,000 years ago, a lot of forest was cleared, and many local species were exterminated. The rise of civilization was responsible, for example, for the extermination of the black Atlas-mountain 9 lion, and for the elimination of lions in general from the area occupied by the

Roman Empire. Agricultural humyn could produce about 10 calories of food energy for the expenditure of one calorie of food energy. This meant that a single humyn could produce enough food for his immediate family, and still have a surplus that could support a nonagricultural urban civilization. Conversion of much of the land area to agriculture allowed the humyn population to grow substantially, to the level of a few hundred million at the time of the Roman Empire. Until about the year 1500, the size of the humyn population did not change much. Overall, agricultural yields were low – perhaps 1/10 of current yields.

Another reason for lack of population growth was limited access to energy resources. About 1500, however, humynkind started using coal instead of wood as a major source of energy. The difficulties in extracting coal led to technological advances such as the development of an efficient steam engine. These developments enabled humyn to utilize much larger amounts of energy. Technological development followed technological development, leading ultimately to humyn’s ability to produce much larger amounts of food. The humyn population explosion was on! The population increased to about a billion in 1800, to two billion in 1925, three billion in 1960, four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, and to six billion today (1999). Humyn population is exploding at the rate of about 80 million a year, or a billion every twelve years. As discussed at length in the references of the preceding chapter, humynkind’s large population size and industrial activity are literally destroying the ecological environment on which he depends for his very existence.


7/111D. Current policies encourage humyn consumption which is destroying biodiversity; 94% of the world’s forests that existed are now gone Caldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “The End of the World, and the New World Order”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm; March 6th] VL

The world’s forests are where many plant and animal species survive, and it is the destruction of forests that is causing much of the ongoing species extinction. About 94 percent of the forest that existed just sixty years ago has been destroyed. In the past 20 years, forests have disappeared in 25 countries. At these rates, most of Earth’s forest cover will soon be gone. As humyn population continues to increase, the demand for wood products and land will increase, so that the destruction of the shrinking forests will accelerate. From the point of view of destruction of Earth’s natural resources, the US population is the most destructive nation on Earth, since its industrial activity is the largest. Its population is large and its industrial production per person is one of the highest in the world. Its per capita commercial energy consumption is one of the highest in the world. Although birth rates for the US white population fell to replacement level years ago, US population growth continues to soar by about three million (one percent) a year, due in large

part to immigration. For each new resident added to the country, about an acre of land is taken permanently out of wildlife habitat or agricultural production. The US has no plans to reduce its per capita energy consumption, or reduce its industrial production per capita, or reduce its population. Its policy, quite the contrary, is to increase both the population and the per capita industrial production as fast as possible, regardless of the consequences to the planet’s biosphere. Every year, it strives to increase its population size, expand industrial production, and push the standard of living ever higher, imposing an ever-greater burden on the planet’s biosphere and driving more species to extinction.

E. Biodiversity loss outweighs nuclear war, economic collapse and tyranny.Chen 2k [Jim, Professor of Law at the U of Minnesota, Minnesota Journal of Global Trade Winter 2000, pg. 211]

The value of endangered species and the biodiversity they embody is literally . . . incalculable. What, if anything, should the law do to preserve it? There are those that invoke the story of Noahs Ark as a moral basis for biodiversity preservation. Others regard the Judeo-Christian tradition, especially the biblical stories of Creation and the Flood, as the root of the Wests deplorable environmental record. To avoid getting bogged down in an environmental exegesis of Judeo-Christian myth and legend, we should let Charles

Darwin and evolutionary biology determine the imperatives of our moment in natural history. The loss of biological diversity is

quite arguably the gravest problem facing humynity. If we cast the question as the contemporary phenomenon that our descendants [will] most regret, the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats is worse than even energy depletion, economic collapse, limited nuclear war, or conquest by a totalitarian government. Natural evolution may in due course renew the earth will a diversity of species approximating that of a world unspoiled by Homo sapiens in ten million years, perhaps a hundred million.



8/111F. Therefore global nuclear war is the only viable solution because no country is willing to make dramatic changes to solve and individual change is impossible.Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “On Saving the Environment, and the Inevitability of Global War”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnGlobalWar.htm; May 8th] VL

So what is the solution? What is going to happen? What is going to happen is war, on a grand and global scale. Global war appears inevitable because, as humynkind destroys the last of the natural environment, the time will come when it is finally accepted that there is not enough room on the planet for a large industrialized humyn population. A solution to the humyn overpopulation problem will never occur, however, at the individual level. Individual people do not want abortions. Individual people do not want infanticide. Individual people do not want "family planning" or "population control." The Catholic Church implores its millions of members to eschew birth control. Individual people do not want conservation (of resources, energy, etc.). A few do, certainly, and some will do these things under duress

or for greed. Individuals want "the good life," and so too, therefore, do their political leaders. Americans now consume one-quarter of the world's energy. The planet is being destroyed and global warming threatens a quick death for the biosphere, yet virtually no Americans are willing to reduce industrial output to help address this situation. America's leaders are certainly not! The actions of a few individuals to restrict family size and consumption will prove futile (and are in fact inimical

to) the goals of all nations to maintain large populations and high levels of industrial activity.

G. Moreover great wars have always solved resource scarcity. And nuclear war is specifically key to reduce population and industrial activity.Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “On Saving the Environment, and the Inevitability of Global War”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnGlobalWar.htm; May 8th] VL

In recent remarks (May 2001), Vice President Dick Cheney recognized (as was emphasized in Can America Survive? several years ago) that conservation is not the

answer to the energy problem. What is the point of cutting back in energy use by, say ten percent, when the population (of the US and of the world) will grow by that amount in another ten years? The solution to the humyn overpopulation problem will occur, not at the individual level, but at the group, or societal level. And the solution will not flow from voluntary or even mandatory restrictions in fertility or

individual activity. The solution will rest in war. War has always been the solution to the problem of limited resources, and it will be the solution in the future (when living space is the limited resource). And it will not be little wars, such as the dozens of wars that continue each year all over the planet. The world's population has exploded exponentially, and it will endure an explosive collapse. The pressure on natural resources is intense. Much of the world's forest has been destroyed, and most people can no longer rely on fuelwood for energy. The catch of fish from the sea has peaked. Petroleum and natural gas deposits will soon (by 2050) be exhausted everywhere. The planet is undergoing the sixth mass planetary extinction of species, this one entirely because of humynkind's large numbers and industrial activity. China and India are calling

for substantial improvements in the quality of life for their massive populations; this will accelerate the exhaustion of fossil fuels and the destruction of the global environment. The humyn population has "overshot" the capacity of the planet to sustain it and the rest of nature, and biospheric collapse is imminent. The planet's environment and diversity will be destroyed unless humyn population and industrial activity are reduced dramatically and immediately

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnGlobalWar.htm

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnGlobalWar.htm


9/111

Ob. 2: The Salvation From Our Sins

A. Since nuclear war is the only feasible solution it will almost certainly occur. A planned attack can create a sustainable Earth and destroy industrialized nationsCaldwell 2kCaldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SomeObsns4.pdf; Dec 25th] VL

Because nuclear war is the only identified feasible solution to the population / environment / species-destruction problem, and because a solution is needed urgently (a solution in fifty years is too late), it is likely to occur. It therefore affects you very much, no matter how much you may oppose it. It is very

much in your interest to be aware of what cities are likely to be targeted in an "optimal" green attack. Moreover, once it is widely recognized that an optimal green attack can and likely will solve the overpopulation problem, it may be possible to mitigate its undesirable effects, preserve what is good in our civilization, and rebuild a[n] better (ecologically sustainable) planet Earth. (That a full-scale nuclear war is the only effective means of solving the overpopulation problem in time to avoid the loss of most of the world's biodiversity is not admitted to or discussed by the world's industrial nations. They are utterly defenseless against a "suitcase-delivered" nuclear attack. That is one reason why, to this day, the US has no civilian defense plan against nuclear attack.)

B. And, current Industrial dehumynization makes nuclear war inevitable it’s the only feasible solution stop all problemsCaldwell 2kCaldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SomeObsns4.pdf; Dec 25th] VL

Because of the population explosion and industrial development, the likelihood of nuclear war is increasing dramatically, for several reasons. First is the increasing overcrowding and hopelessness of life for massive numbers of people: the "politics of envy" drives the "have nots" to destroy the material riches that they can never possess. The information explosion and proliferation of plutonium have made nuclear technology and the ability to construct atomic bombs readily available to terrorist groups

and rogue nations. (As the world supply of fossil fuel runs out, nuclear energy is a long-term solution only if "fast-breeder" reactors, which produce plutonium, are used. The amount of plutonium available worldwide is about to increase very much.) Finally, nuclear war is currently the most effective way,

perhaps the only feasible way, of bringing about an immediate and substantial reduction in humyn population size and industrial activity – the root causes of the planet’s environmental destruction and species loss. No other proposed solution to the population / environment / species-extinction problem accomplishes this. Indeed, all other proposed courses of action result in continued environmental destruction, species extinction, decreased biodiversity, increased greenhouse gasses and, inevitably, a ruined planet. Peaceful means have been tried for decades, and have failed utterly to solve the problem. Continued species destruction will have fatal consequences for the planet -- a solution must be found, and immediately. In view of the fact that war can accomplish immediate reductions in population and industrial activity, and no other course of action can, it is difficult to imagine that it will not occur. War has solved population problems in the past, and it will solve them in the future.




10/111C. More so, only global nuclear war can halt all industrial processes, overpopulation, and other humyn degradations occurring – nothing else can solve.Caldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “The End of the World, and the New World Order”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm; March 6th] VL

What can change things? What can halt the rapid destruction of the world’s forests, atmosphere, oceans, and species by humyn overpopulation and global industrialization? Well, any of a number of things. A large asteroid might hit the planet, as is believed to have occurred 65 million years ago when the dinosaurs disappeared. The atmosphere becomes so filled with dust

that sunlight is blocked out for days or weeks. Many of the planet’s plant and animal species are destroyed. Food is gone and large animals perish. Massive volcanic activity could accomplish the same end. The problem with both of these eventualities is that they accomplish the same result as humynkind’s current overpopulation and global industrialization – the destruction of the biosphere and mass species extinction. How about famine? As long as fossil fuels hold out, it does not appear that famine will halt the humyn population explosion. The world can easily feed nine billion, just by converting all forests to cropland and eliminating meat from the humyn diet (i.e., use cereal grains for humyn consumption, rather than for animal feed). The world can continue to feed billions of people, however, only as long as fossil fuels hold out. The world’s petroleum and

natural gas reserves will be exhausted by 2050 (coal will last somewhat longer), and solar energy can support only about 200-500 million people. When fossil fuels are gone, the era of global industrialization and large humyn populations will be over. The humyn population will indeed drop, but by the time that that happens, mass extinction of the biosphere’s species will have taken place. There is continuing debate over whether a suitable energy alternative might be found to replace

the energy from oil, as it runs out. As discussed in Reference 1, there is little evidence, and certainly no compelling evidence, that a comparable substitute will be found. Moreover, from the point of view of the health of the biosphere, it would be very unfortunate if a substitute energy source were found. The mass species extinction started in full force at about the beginning of the petroleum age (ca. 1950), i.e., when humynkind, numbering in the billions and armed with modern high-energy-consumption technology, started using vastly more energy than was available from the daily solar energy flux. The

biosphere as we know it evolved with nature using the energy contained in the daily solar energy flux. The Garden-of-Eden biosphere in which we evolved cannot survive if humynkind continues to utilize vastly more energy than this amount. The destruction of the biosphere and the mass species extinction are being caused by large humyn numbers and high industrial production / energy use, and this destruction will not stop until humyn numbers and energy use drop back to the low levels that prevailed prior to the start of the destruction. The lie that species extinction can be stopped even though high levels of energy use and industrial production continue has been disproved over and over and over again, year after year after year. Each year that global industrialization continues spells more destroyed forests; tens of thousands more species are made extinct, and more portions

of our biosphere sustain permanent, irreversible damage. The ecological carnage of global industrialization will not stop until either global industrialization comes to an end or the biosphere is destroyed. Disease could wipe out humynkind. It is clear that HIV/AIDS will not accomplish this – it is not even having a significant impact on

slowing the population explosion in Africa, where prevalence rates reach over thirty percent in some countries. But a real killer plague could certainly wipe out humynkind. The interesting thing about plagues, however, is that they never seem to kill everyone – historically, the mortality rate is never 100

per cent (from disease alone). Based on historical evidence , it would appear that, while plagues may certainly reduce humyn population, they are not likely to wipe it out entirely. This notwithstanding, the gross intermingling of humyn beings and other species that accompanies globalization nevertheless increases the likelihood of global diseases to high levels. The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the biosphere poses a danger similar to that of disease. When a plant GMO is created, its pollen spreads around the world. It is quite conceivable that much of humynkind’s food supply could be eliminated, simply by a terrible error in which the introduction of one or more GMOs resulted in the global loss of harvests of a staple food, such as a cereal grain. And war. War could wipe out humynkind. Not small wars, such as the scores of small conflicts that

continue year after year. Not even big wars, such as the First and Second World Wars. But a really big war, involving thousands of nuclear weapons. That can make a real difference. Furthermore, it can bring an immediate halt to the high level of industrial activity that is destroying the planet. It can reduce humyn numbers to



11/111the point where they no longer have a significant impact on the planet’s ecology. The famous astronomer and writer Sir Fred Hoyle once observed that humynkind will have only one chance to do something worthwhile with the energy from fossil fuel and the minerals at the Earth’s surface: if it ends up destroying the planet it will never have a second chance. Global industrialization is causing the destruction that Hoyle referred to.

Global nuclear war could bring that process to a halt. This section has identified a number of phenomena that might bring a halt

to humynkind’s destruction of the biosphere. Some of them, such as asteroids or volcanoes, are beyond humynkind’s control, and their occurrence has nothing to do with its large numbers and high industrial production / energy use. Of the anthropogenic factors that might reduce humynkind’s destruction of the biosphere – famine, plague, and war – it appears that famine and plague would have little effect on stopping the mass species

extinction. They may cause a temporary reduction in humyn numbers, but the population would rebound, and high levels of industrial production would continue, and damage to the biosphere would continue. The industrial nations of the world, which account for most of the global energy use, would likely continue in numbers and in industrial activity pretty much as before. These eventualities would do little to stop the destruction of the

biosphere and the mass species extinction. But war is different. The main difference is not that it may reduce humyn numbers faster or to a greater degree than famine or plague, but that it can cause a catastrophic decrease in the level of industrial production, which is the major cause of environmental destruction. Also, it can occur at any time – it does not have to wait until fossil fuels run out, after many more species have been destroyed. It can occur tomorrow, and prevent the species loss that would otherwise occur over the last half

century of the petroleum age. By reducing industrial activity by a large amount, it could reduce the current horrific rate of consumption of fossil fuels, leaving some for many future generations to take advantage of – to use for humynkind’s benefit, rather than for a few generations’ mindless pleasure. (Of course, economics does not distinguish between production spent on war or video games or tourism or religion or art or philosophy, and the

discounted “present value” of things in the far distant future is negligible, so this argument is of little consequence in today’s world.) And the likelihood of its occurrence is increasing fast. The next two sections will discuss the likely damage from global nuclear war, and the likelihood of its occurrence.

D. As industrialization is destroying the biosphere nuclear war will serve as natural selection for our population.Caldwell 2Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2002[Joseph George; “On War and Peace”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnWarAndPeace.htm; Aug 7th] VL

As noted in previous articles, the current global peace has been more destructive to the planet’s biosphere and the quality of humyn life than war ever has. Peace is rapidly destroying the biosphere that evolved

over the last 65 million years, and is placing the continued existence of the humyn species in peril. The biosphere is not designed for, and cannot accommodate, large-scale industrialization. Extreme overcrowding and global commingling of people is not conducive to good health of the humyn species. Global industrialization has resulted in direst poverty and deprivation for billions of humyn beings. Neither extreme war nor extreme peace can continue for very long. War and peace constitute a duality in which both conditions are essential for the good health and long-term survival of the humyn species. No species can continue to breed without some sort of process of population moderation taking place, and no species can remain in good health without some sort of natural selection. War is essential for both of these processes. They both contribute to the health of humynkind. All animals fight for space, sustenance,

and sex. This is not only natural, but essential for health and survival of the species. (Of course, no species – or nation or civilization -- survives forever – we are speaking here in relative terms.)

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnWarAndPeace.htm


12/111E. Furthermore, a minimal-regret population of five million hunter-gathers and five million person industrialized nation will prolong the existence of the humynrace Caldwell 2Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2002[Joseph George; “A Brief Guide to Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/GuideToPM.htm; September 10th] VL

The vision for Earth is a planet with a “minimal-regret” humyn population of ten million people – a single-nation technologically advanced city-state of five million people, and a low-technology (hunter-gatherer) population of five million people distributed over the planet. A “minimal-regret” population is one that keeps the likelihood of extinction of the humyn species and destruction of the biosphere as we know it at low levels, and keeps the likelihood of long-term survival (of the same) at high levels. The rationale for this vision is (1) the fact that humynkind’s large numbers and industrial activity are rapidly destroying the biosphere as we know it, and (2) the belief that a humyn population of the size and nature of the aforesaid minimal-regret population is sustainable in the long term, and will not adversely affect the rest of the biosphere. The vision is, further, that with the establishment

of a minimal-regret population, Earth’s biosphere will return quickly (e.g., within a few centuries) to its diverse and flourishing state of a few thousand years ago – the healthy and stable (slowly evolving) condition in which it has existed – with humynkind -- for millions of years. For more discussion of the “minimal-regret” population, see the book,

Can America Survive? (http://www.foundation.bw ). The rationale for a global population of ten million is that that is the population size that existed for millions of years in harmony with the biosphere. The role of the single-nation technological population is planetary management, which includes global population management / control – to keep the size of the globally distributed humyn population in check. The role of the globally distributed population of five million is to promote the likelihood of humyn survival in the long term, by reducing the chance of extinction from a single local catastrophe (i.e., destruction of the single nation). The Earth can certainly support more than ten million people on its recurrent “budget” of solar energy. It could support several hundred million, but at a much lower energy-per-capita level than for a population of ten million, and at increased risk of

destruction of the biosphere and extinction of the humyn species. The approach taken in Can America Survive? is to set the population at as small a size as is considered necessary to maintain a minimal-regret population of ten million – to maximize the likelihood of humyn and biospheric long-term survival and high quality by keeping the size and activity of humyn population at a very low level. Attempts to maximize the size of the humyn population (and industrial production) – and that is the approach of every other population

policy effort of which I am aware – maximize the risk of destruction of the biosphere and extinction of the humyn species. The minimal-regret approach reduces the impact of humyn’s existence in the biosphere by keeping the utilization of solar energy for humynkind’s purposes low.

http://www.foundation.bw/

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/GuideToPM.htm


13/111F. By reducing the Existential Risk of extinction, the difference may result in the continuation of the humyn race or its extinction; this outweighs all other impacts – the math is conclusively on our side

Nick Bostrom, 2011 Professor of Philosophy & Oxford Martin School, Director of the Future of Humanity

Institute, and Director of the Programme on Impacts of Future Technology at the University of Oxford, recipient of the 2009 Eugene R Gannon Award for the Continued Pursuit of Humyn Advancement, holds a PH.D in Philosophy from the London School of Economics (“The Concept of Existential Risk,” Draft of a Paper published on ExistentialRisk.com.)

Holding probability constant, risks become more serious as we move toward the upper-right region of figure 2. For any fixed probability, existential risks are thus more serious than other risk categories. But just how much more serious might not be intuitively obvious. One might think we could get a grip on how bad an existential catastrophe would be by considering some of the worst historical disasters we can think of—such as the two world wars, the Spanish flu pandemic, or the Holocaust—and then imagining something just a bit worse. Yet if we look at global population statistics over time, we find that these horrible events of the past century fail to register (figure 3). But even this reflection fails to

bring out the seriousness of existential risk. What makes existential catastrophes especially bad is not that they would show up robustly on a plot like the one in figure 3, causing a precipitous drop in world population or average quality of life. Instead, their

significance lies primarily in the fact that they would destroy the future . The philosopher Derek Parfit made a similar point with the following thought experiment: I believe that if we destroy mankind, as we now can, this outcome will be much worse than most people

think. Compare three outcomes:(1) Peace. (2) A nuclear war that kills 99% of the world’s existing population. (3) A nuclear war that kills 100%. (2) Would be worse than (1), and (3) would be worse than (2). Which is the greater of these two differences? Most people believe that the greater difference is between (1) and (2). I believe that the difference between (2) and (3) is very much greater. The Earth will remain habitable for at least another billion years. Civilization began only a few thousand years ago. If we do not destroy mankind, these few thousand years may be only a tiny fraction of the whole of civilized

humyn history. The difference between (2) and (3) may thus be the difference between this tiny fraction and all of the rest of this history. If we compare this possible history to a day, what has occurred so far is only a fraction of a second. To calculate the loss associated with an existential catastrophe, we must consider how much value would come to exist in its absence. It

turns out that the ultimate potential for Earth-originating intelligent life is literally astronomical. One gets a large number even if one confines one’s consideration to the potential for biological humyn beings living on Earth. If we suppose with Parfit that

our planet will remain habitable for at least another billion years, and we assume that at least one billion people could live on it sustainably, then the potential exist for at least 10 18 humyn lives. These lives could also be considerably better than the average contemporary humyn life, which is so often marred by disease, poverty, injustice, and various biological limitations that could be partly overcome through continuing technological and moral progress. However, the relevant figure is not how many people could live on Earth but how many descendants we could have in total. One lower bound of the number of biological humyn life-years in the future accessible universe (based on current cosmological estimates) is 1034 years.[7] Another estimate, which assumes that future minds will be mainly implemented in computational hardware instead of biological neuronal wetware, produces a lower bound of 1054human-brain-emulation subjective life-years (or 1071 basic computational operations).(4)[8] If we make the less conservative assumption that future civilizations could eventually press close to the absolute bounds of known physics (using some as yet unimagined technology), we get radically higher estimates of the amount of computation and memory storage that is achievable and thus of the number of years of subjective experience that could be realized.[9 Even if we use the most conservative of these estimates, which entirely ignores the possibility of space colonization and software minds, we find that the expected loss of an existential catastrophe is greater than the value of 1018 humyn lives. This implies that the expected value of reducing existential risk by a mere one millionth of one percentage point is at least ten times the value of a billion humyn lives. The more technologically comprehensive estimate of 1054 humyn-brain -emulation subjective life-years (or 1052 lives of ordinary length) makes the same point even more starkly. Even if we give this allegedly lower bound on the cumulative output potential of a

technologically mature civilization a mere 1% chance of being correct, we find that the expected value of reducing existential risk by a mere one billionth of one billionth of one percentage point is worth a hundred billion times as much as a billion humyn lives. One might consequently argue that even the tiniest reduction of existential risk has an expected value greater than that of the definite provision of any “ordinary” good, such as the direct benefit of saving 1 billion lives.

http://www.existential-risk.org/concept.html#_ftn8

http://www.existential-risk.org/concept.html#_ftn7


14/111G. After nuclear war, survivors will understand the follies of industrialization and ultimately shift towards a more sustainable solution.Caldwell 2Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2002[Joseph George; “The Omega Project”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheOmegaProject.htm; September 10th] VL

It would seem unlikely that any large group extant today will form the nucleus of a New World Order, since almost all are committed to

economic development and growth, and that is what has brought about the current global disaster. After global nuclear war, the folly of massive industrialization will be apparent to the survivors, and some will strive to set up a new, sustainable, environmentally sound global society. The objective of The Omega Project is to increase the likelihood that this will be accomplished, and accomplished as quickly as possible, by clearly predicting the outcome of the present system, identifying an alternative system that will work, and demonstrating the advantage of an early transition to a new system. This will be accomplished by an educational program that convincingly shows the path on which humynkind is currently set and identifies a global population size and composition / organization that is sustainable in the long term. If many people hear the message of the inevitability of failure of the current system (economic

development, multiple nations) and the feasibility of establishing a long-term sustainable population, then the survivors of the destroyed industrial world will be motivated and able to set up a new planetary system based on a small humyn population. It is not the objective of The Omega Project to form the new world order – the

principals of the Project will probably be destroyed along with much of the rest of the industrial world as it collapses. Rather, the objective is that so many people will understand the reasons for the industrial and environmental collapse of the world that they will seek to set up a better world in the future, and know what its characteristics are.

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheOmegaProject.htm


15/111

Ob. 3: The Garden of Eden

A. A minimal regret society can only occur after nuclear war. Only then will the people be receptive to such change.Caldwell 2Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2002[Joseph George; “A Brief Guide to Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/GuideToPM.htm; September 10th] VL

It is believed that current humyn civilization will destroy itself in a global nuclear war, or perhaps in some other catastrophic event brought on by humynkind’s exploding population (e.g., a disease similar

to the humyn immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but more easily transmitted). It is intended to establish a minimal-regret population after that event. The current planetary system of government is best described as anarchic – it consists of about 200 independent states, each striving for large populations and high levels of industrial output, each striving to out-produce and out-consume the other, regardless of consequences to the planet’s biosphere. The momentum and power of the world’s industrial society is currently so great, however, that there is no point to attempting to establish a minimal-regret population at the present time. Any attempt to do so now would be ridiculed at best and quashed at worst. In the wake of global nuclear war, the survivors will see first-hand the folly of the world’s current way of global industrialization, and they will be very receptive to a promising alternative. It is at that time that steps will be taken to establish and maintain a minimal-regret population.

B. Though nuclear war seems unattractive it’s the only and therefore the most desirable solution. And to maximize the effectiveness of nuclear war timing is essential.Caldwell 2Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2002[Joseph George; “A Brief Guide to Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/GuideToPM.htm; September 10th] VL

With respect to the matter of war, my writings have often been misunderstood or misinterpreted. Some people claim that I am advocating war as a means of solving the planet’s environmental and ecological problems. That is not correct, and it misses the point. I believe that global war is inevitable, and I believe that it will be an event leading eventually to a better world than we have today, and that would occur in the absence of it. In this sense, it is possible that global war may be desirable, since it may lead to a better situation for humynkind and the biosphere. I believe, moreover, that the timing of global war is important. If global war occurs too soon, the damage to the industrial world is not great, and the world will simply reindustrialize and repopulate, and continue on the road to global disaster, possible extinction for humynkind, and a ruined biosphere (e.g., no large animals; loss of mammals;

inheritance of the planet by ants, spiders and cockroaches). If global war happens too late, the biosphere is also ruined. In other words, there is an “optimal” timing of global war, if it is to occur , and if it is to result

ultimately in a saved or a minimally damaged biosphere.




16/111C. And finally, current governing institutions all lead to the destruction of the biosphere – only a synarchic minimal-regret government can preclude these impacts.Caldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On Democracy as a Basis for Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnDemocracy.htm; July 14th] VL

It is not that I dislike democracy. I love democracy. Democracy has treated me very well. Despite its recognized faults, it has tremendous

advantages over many other systems. In a world in which humyn society has not yet reached its resource limits and is not destroying the biosphere’s diversity, it is a fabulous system for allowing and enabling and promoting self-realization. It is a desirable ingredient for “fast-track” development of advanced technology. It is a good basis for games (competitions) among large groups of people (nations), when resources are essentially unconstrained. Nations that adopt democracy will

have a tremendous advantage (with respect to industrial productivity) over those that do not. But today, on planet Earth, its time has passed. The time for multiple sovereign nations has passed. Democracy is no longer relevant, since it will not work to accomplish long-term stability of the remaining biodiversity of the planet’s biosphere. Communism will not work. Fascism will not work. Theocracy will not work. Russia, China, Iraq, Iran and Indonesia have destroyed their natural environments every bit as much as the US, India, Britain, Germany and Mexico. A global system based on multiple sovereign nations of any governmental type will not work . The planet has encountered a “paradigm shift” (the advent of advanced technology), and none of the old systems

will work. Even synarchy will not work, if it is oriented toward promotion of a large humyn population and industrial production. What will work is a rational, mission-oriented system of planetary management that ensures that the humyn population will not destroy itself or the other species of the biosphere. What will work is a synarchic government of a minimal-regret population of ten million people . And that is what I am committed to.

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnDemocracy.htm


17/111

***Extensions***


18/111

SQ Destruction → Ecocide

The current planetary situation is destroying the biosphere and mass species extinction through excessive consumption/pollution – the only way to stop this is to end the Industrial AgeCaldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “The End of the World, and the New World Order”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm; March 6th] VL

The article assesses the current planetary situation (“state of the world”), in which large humyn numbers and industrial activity are destroying the biosphere and causing a mass species extinctio n, and it describes what will happen if current trends continue. It examines the relationship of industrial production to energy availability, and concludes that the era of global industrialization will end within a few decades, as global fossil fuel reserves exhaust.

When the industrial age comes to an end – either because fossil fuels run out or because of some sort of catastrophe such as global nuclear war – global humyn population will drop to the same levels as before the industrial age, i.e., to a few hundred million or less. If the industrial age continues at its present level of activity until fossil fuels exhaust, many of the biosphere’s species will be made extinct, and the risk increases that a catastrophic collapse of the biospher e (or at least a

major change in the “balance of nature”) will occur. The article examines a number of different ways in which the industrial age might come to a catastrophic end prior to the exhaustion of global fossil fuel reserves. It concludes that global nuclear war is probably the most likely means, and it describes the likelihood of occurrence and expected consequences of global nuclear war.

Loss of biodiversity and mass extinction is directly caused by humyn consumption, economic activity, and pollutionCaldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “The End of the World, and the New World Order”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm; March 6th] VL

The state of the world is disastrous. The planet is currently experiencing the greatest mass extinction of species since the time of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago, and it is being caused solely by humynkind’s massive numbers and industrial activity. Most of the species extinction is being caused by rampant destruction of forests and wildlife habitat. In other cases, species are being deliberately singled

out for destruction, as in the case of rhinoceros horn (for Yemeni dagger handles), or tigers (for Chinese medicine), or whales (for Japanese

whale-meat shops). Industrial gasses are poisoning the atmosphere to such an extent that the ozone layer that protects all biological life from extreme radiation is being destroyed. These gasses are contributing to global warming . Signs of global warming are dramatic and ubiquitous. Humynkind’s large

numbers and industrial activity are causing such great changes to the atmosphere that it is conceivable that all life on the planet’s surface could be extinguished in a relatively short time.

Apart from the possibility that present humyn numbers and activity risk catastrophic destruction of the planet’s biosphere, the humyn species is at the very least causing a tremendous change in the planet’s biodiversity. Of the estimated 5-30 million species on the planet’s surface, an estimated 30,000 are being exterminated every year. The naturalist Edward O. Wilson has estimated that if the current rate of extinction continues, half the Earth’s plant and animal species will disappear by the end of the twenty-first century. With each passing year, the world becomes a less and less varied and interesting place to be. With each passing year, humynkind is disturbing to a greater degree the balance of nature in the biosphere in which it evolved over millions of years, increasing the risk of precipitating major planetary changes and its own extinction. For details on the current state of the world, refer to the annual Worldwatch Institute publication, State of the World, or the World Resources Institute’s annual

publication, World Resources. In summary, humynkind’s large numbers and industrial activity are causing the extinction of large numbers of other species, and could lead quickly to the biological death of the planet. This destruction began with the advent of modern technology several centuries ago, and accelerated tremendously with the advent of the petroleum age. The humyn population continues to grow by about 1.3 - 1.4 percent a year, and economic activity (industrial production) is increasing by about three




19/111The world population is exploding and current studies show that there’s no way in SQ to solve for this. If we continue on the path of maximum economic growth regardless of the consequences extinction is inevitable.Caldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “The End of the World, and the New World Order”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm; March 6th] VL

World humyn population is exploding. It passed the six billion mark in 1999, and it increases by about 80 million every year. In many regions of the world, the humyn population is increasing at horrific rates, and it will continue to do so because birth rates are very high – much higher than the “replacement” level of just over two children per woman in her lifetime . Birth rates are dropping in many regions, but very slowly, and rarely to replacement levels. Current estimates by the United Nations and the World Bank are that the world

population will continue to increase for decades, even if humyn birth rates were to drop rapidly to replacement levels everywhere. Under the most optimistic assumptions about fertility declines, the humyn population will increase to perhaps nine billion people. If birth rates do not drop to replacement level, the population will continue to soar. History offers no cause for optimism that the humyn population explosion will spare any portion of the world. Underdeveloped nations continue to grow in population until they simply run out of natural resources and cause total destruction of their forests and wildlife. Most developed industrial nations continue to grow in population at about one-half of one percent per year. They strive for maximum and sustained economic growth, regardless of consequences to the local environment or

the planet’s ecological well-being.

Humyn-induced deforestation is occurring at an alarming rate - by 2020 all rainforests will be destroyed.Earth Renewal 12[http://earthrenewal.org/rainless.htm] VL

"While you were reading the above statistics, approximately 150 acres of rainforest were destroyed. Within the next hour approximately six species will become extinct. While extinction is a natural process, the alarming rate of extinction today, comparable only to the extinction of the dinosaurs, is specifically humyn-induced and unprecedented. Experts agree that the number-one cause of extinction is habitat destruction . Quite simply, when habitat is reduced, species disappear. In the rainforests, logging, cattle ranching, mining, oil

extraction, hydroelectric dams and subsistence farming are the leading causes of habitat destruction. Indirectly, the leading threats to rainforest ecosystems are unbridled development, funded by international aid-lending institutions such as the World Bank, and the voracious consumer appetites of industrialized nations. If deforestation continues at current rates, scientists estimate nearly 80-90 percent of tropical rainforest ecosystems will be destroyed by the year 2020."



20/111Using kilograms of oil equivalents to measure industrial activity it shows under even if perfect fertility rates and environment protection occur birthrates and pollution will continue to spiral out of control causing massive destruction to the biosphere – only major change can solveCaldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “The End of the World, and the New World Order”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm; March 6th] VL

All nations of the Earth strive for increased economic and industrial activity. Perhaps the simplest readily available measure of industrial activity is the amount of commercial energy consumed, which is usually measured in terms of kilograms of oil equivalent (kgoe) per capita per annum. Over the past few decades, the commercial energy consumption of the planet has increased at an average rate of about three percent a year, somewhat

less in recent years. Note that this is about the same as the rate of increase of economic activity as measured by the standard measure, gross domestic product (GDP). Without energy, there is no industrial activity. At the present time, about one-sixth of the planet’s population has a high level of industrial production, and the rest of the population is striving to achieve high levels also. What this means is that, in the absence of war or other phenomena to reduce industrial capacity and activity, the level of industrial production will continue to increase even if the humyn population tapers off. The annual GDP per capita of the richest nations is on the order of about $25,000 (GNP per capita, purchasing-power-party (PPP), current

international $), whereas for poor countries it is about $2,000 per year. The world average is about $6,000. At a growth rate (in industrial production) of three percent a year, it would take the rest of the world about fifty years to catch up to where the developed countries are today. This means that even if the humyn population were to level off by 2050, global industrial production would continue to increase throughout this period, even if the developed nations “stood still” and the poorer nations just tried to catch up. Given the commitment of all nations to the increased standards of living associated with increased industrial production, global industrial production is bound to continue to soar as poor countries strive to become rich, even if population levels off. Under the current world order, industrial production will continue to soar to higher and higher levels, and the massive destruction of the environment that is caused by industrial activity will intensify. In summary, even under the wildest assumptions about decreasing fertility rates, humyn population levels will continue to rise, and industrial activity will soar exponentially, for generations to come. The destruction to the biosphere will continue unabated. The planet’s biosphere and biodiversity – already reeling from humynkind’s assault – are doomed. Unless radical change happens.

The type of society furthered by the aff is inherently evil causing poverty, destruction of the biosphere, and a miserable life – their authors are disillusioned.Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

Society’s leaders promote civilization (and economic development) not because it provides a better life for the masses. It does not. It provides misery for the masses. Leaders promote civilization because social

organization provides a level of wealth and power to the leaders which is not possible in a huntergatherer society. And that is why world leaders will fight

to save worldwide civilization and promote globalization at any cost. Not because it helps people, but because it furnishes luxury to those in control, even though at tremendous cost – lifetimes of misery – to billions. That civilization will eradicate poverty and humyn misery is one of the greatest lies ever perpetrated on the humyn race. That “the poor are always with you” is an unavoidable byproduct of civilization. The common perception today – a myth – is that the

destruction of industrial civilization would be a terrible thing, the ruin of humynkind. The fact is, industrial society has been the ruination of humynkind. Humyn evolved as a hunter-gatherer, and it is a natural, hunter-gatherer existence that serves him

well. “Back to the Stone Age” should be perceived as a rallying cry to a better life. Humyns were banished from a hunting-gathering existence

to an agricultural one, not the other way around. Returning humynkind to a hunting-gathering lifestyle will not only save the planet from destruction, it will free billions of people from grinding poverty as well.



21/111In SQ industrial gases and pollution are destroying the atmosphere and biodiversity. The surface temperature has increased and has impacted weather, sea level, flora and faunaCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

The publications listed above paint a bleak picture of what industrialization is doing to the planet’s air, land, water, and biology. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are continuing to mount as forests are cleared and fossil fuels are burned. Chlorofluorocarbons and other industrial gasses continue to destroy the ozone layer protecting the planet’s plant and animal life . The average temperature at the Earth’s surface has increased by almost a degree (Celsius) in the last 150 years, and by almost half a degree in the last thirty years. While the size of these changes may seem small, t hey are sufficient to cause very large changes in the world’s weather, sea levels, and flora and fauna. Over the last century the world has lost half its original forest area, and much so called “reforestation” is simply replacing ecologically diverse forests with monoculture tree plantations. Each year, humyn destroys another 16 million hectares of ecologically diverse forest. In the article, “A Non-Fuzzy Earth Day,” in the May 3, 1999 issue of Time, Pranay Gupte (editor and

publisher of The Earth Times) summarizes the situation. In the past 20 years, forests have disappeared in 25 countries, and over 95% of the forests have disappeared in 18 countries . There were an estimated 60 billion hectares of forest on the planet just before World War II; now, because of logging, cutting for firewood, and desertification, there are 3.6 billion. (Figures from the World Commission on Forests and

Sustainable Development). The World Conservation Union estimates that this forest decline threatens 12.5% of the world’s 275,000 species of plants and 75% of its mammals. The non-biodegradable waste products

of humyn industrial activity continue to grow unabated. Chemically toxic and radioactive industrial wastes poison more and more of our finite land resources every year. The destruction to coastal wetlands and coastal fishing areas as a result of manmade pollution has been devastating. Because of the runoff of agricultural chemicals, thousands of square miles of coastal and estuarine areas have been killed.

The root cause of all ecological and environmental problems is overpopulation.Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

The root cause of all of the environmental and ecological problems facing the planet is twofold: the very large humyn population, and the extraordinarily high levels of toxic waste produced by industrial activity. The planet can and has harbored a large number of humyn beings for very long periods in the past. It has been estimated that the humyn population has been approximately 2-20 million for the past hundred thousand years, while humynkind existed in a hunting gathering mode, increasing to about 200-300 million after the advent of the agricultural revolution (10,000 years ago).


22/111

The society furthered by the aff is based in poverty and inequality through energy consumption.Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

The quality of life for humyn beings varies tremendously over the planet. There are rich countries where most of the population enjoy a high standard of living, and poor countries in which most of the population live in extreme poverty. In general, the standard of living of a country is directly related to the amount of energy used by the citizens. This chapter describes the relationship of humyn quality of life to energy consumption.

Overpopulation threatens the survival of our species and current leaders are delaying action because of ignorance and fearCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

As discussed at length in the references of the preceding chapter, humynkind’s large population size and industrial activity are literally destroying the ecological environment on which he depends for his very existence. Since the humyn population explosion threatens our existence, one would think that this topic would receive more attention than any other. Incredibly , this is not the case . Although a number of perceptive books have been written on the subject, they represent a miniscule proportion of all literature. A number of people have commented

on the incredible lack of interest in the population problem. Garrett Hardin has referred to this lack of interest as “discounting in time and space.” Any problem far away in time or distance is not given much attention. Whenever I happened to mention to someone that I was writing a book on population to someone, and that major population

reductions might not occur for several decades, the response invariably was, “Oh, well, we probably won’t even be alive then anyway, so what does it matter?” The first major work on humyn population was by the Rev. Thomas Malthus. He argued in 1798 that humyn population would eventually outstrip humyn’s ability to produce food. He did not anticipate the tremendous increases in agricultural 10 productivity that were around the corner, however, and so he believed that this crisis would occur very soon, not in a couple of hundred years.


23/111The quality of life on Earth worsens as overpopulation and massive environmental damage continuesCaldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

The quality of life for most people on Earth is very poor. The planet is in an extreme state of overpopulation, both from the viewpoint of humyn beings, most of who have live in extreme misery, and from the viewpoint of other species, which are being made extinct at a high rate. The word

overpopulation definitely applies here, because it is large humyn numbers that is the direct cause of the current extreme biospheric destruction, including the extinction of an estimated 30,000 species per year. The extreme and significant overpopulation of the planet by humyn beings has been caused by the system of growth-based economics (debt-based money and interest). I have written much on this topic (see The Late Great United States, at

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/ TheLateGreatUnitedStates.htm), and I will not repeat the discussion here. The continual economic growth caused by this system reduces the amount of quality (natural) environment available to each person, and continued operation of this system will worsen the situation. Under this system, the number of people living in wretched poverty increases each year. In the past century, the number of very poor people has increased from under a billion to four or five billion . All the while the number of poor people has been increasing, the state of the environment and condition of other species have been also deteriorating. The system of growth-based economics destroys both nature and the quality of life for most humyn beings. The reason why it is supported by the planet’s wealthy elite is that it generates massive wealth for them, and a high level of power (through control of scarce resources).

Current takes on peace inevitably lead to mass species extinction, war, and destruction of the biosphereCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

World “peace” – in an absolute sense meaning the total absence of organized conflict – is evidently an unachievable goal for humynkin d. A more realistic goal may be some sort of semi-stable equilibrium involving a controlled level of conflict. All plant and animal species have birth rates that exceed replacement

levels, else they would soon become extinct. The population sizes of all species would “explode” were it not for the “balance of nature” that keeps population sizes in equilibrium. Any species that proliferates is doomed to a rapid, “catastrophic” population collapse. Technological humyn can temporarily upset the balance of nature and fill the planet with billions of humyn beings, but this cannot last. If nature’s other species do not keep the humyn population in check, then humynkind will perform this function itself, through war (organized conflict – “collective killing for a collective purpose,” in the words of John Keegan). In the absence of “natural” control of humynkind’s numbers, war is inevitable . And as the

humyn population explodes, the likelihood and the magnitude of war must explode as well. War, war, and more war – that is what is in humynkind ’s future. For technological humyn, nature no longer controls population size, and peace cannot occur without the population reductions of war. Peace and war are as inseparable as yin and yang. They are natural complements – one does not occur without the other. The world’s industrialized nations and developmen t organizations suggest that economic development will eliminate poverty, bring about population stability, and lead to peace. Quite the opposite is true: economic development has caused humyn poverty on a grand scale, it has caused the humyn population to explode, and it will cause war on a grand scale. Economic development sows the seeds of its own destruction.

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/%20TheLateGreatUnitedStates.htm

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm


24/111In SQ most people are indifferent to things like overpopulation, peak oil etc and falsely believe the only way to solve this is a revolution over their corrupt gov Caldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

Note that it does not matter to most people – leaders or masses – that large humyn numbers and industrial activity are causing damage to the biosphere and leading to humyn extinction. They are indifferent to the concept of or prospect of the passage of Peak Oil, until they themselves are starving. The intellectual concept of their future extinction or that of their children means little to most of them, as long as it is not happening

right now. All they care about is their own lives and their present condition, no matter how wretched these may be. Only when they come to believe that their demise is imminent will they finally act. Up to that time, hope springs eternal in the humyn breast, and people will continue to believe that science and technology – another Green Revolution or oil discovery – will save them. They will not act – move, lead, follow, rebel – until they are starving to death and see no alternative to risking their lives and taking the lives of others. When they see that the future that they previously believed in is gone, they will finally

act, if they can. At that time, when hundreds of millions are dying of starvation, they will listen to reason and follow leaders who promote the option that affords them the best chance of survival. They will not act on the intellectual concepts of biospheric destruction, mass species extinction, global warming, or Peak Oil. Their political leaders will not act on these concepts, because they care only for their current material wealth. They will act only when the system that gave them great wealth –

growth-based economics, large humyn numbers and industrial activity – is collapsing. And it is for this reason that Peak Oil is of critical importance, for it is when Peak Oil occurs, and global oil production starts to fall, that the current system will collapse and significant change will occur. Incredibly, it is not the prospect of biospheric destruction or even humyn extinction that will motivate people to act for a new system of planetary management – it is the passage of Peak Oil and the actual collapse of the present system. Many people now believe that the current system of planetary management (large humyn numbers and industrial activity; growth-

based economics; interest) will not maintain or improve the quality of their lives, or the quality of their children’s lives. They believe that the current system is corrupt, pernicious, and will not change, and that the only means of meaningful change of this system is immediate and radical change, viz., revolution, not evolution. Until recently, the quality of life was acceptable for a large number of people, and some amount of food was available to almost everyone, even to most of the desperately poor. For this reason, revolution did not occur – it was conceivable to many people that, bad as things were, they could be worse under chaos, or anarchy, or

any change at all (poor people tend to be very risk-averse). The devil you know is preferable to the devil you don’t know. Now that Hubbert’s Peak (“Peak Oil”) is passing, material well-being will quickly deteriorate, and the situation will change dramatically, from one of abject poverty for billions of people but the starvation of only a few million per year in faraway places, to one of starvation of hundreds of millions of people per year and the immediate prospect of starvation for almost everyone, everywhere. People will see that there is no hope for continuation of the present system, both because of the end of the Petroleum Age and because the current system of growth-based economics is destroying the biosphere. Action follows belief. At this point – the point of belief – global war and revolution will occur. People will cling to life and sacrifice their freedom for a scrap of bread, but when it is clear that the outcome of continuing as is is certain death, and they have nothing to lose, not even life itself, then they move to action to change the status quo.



25/111Nuclear war is ethical. What isn’t ethical are the evils and exploitation of the Corporatists in the SQ.Caldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

Americans who consider my views on planetary management and global nuclear war to be extreme or outrageous should ask themselves why the Russia, China and other countries, such as Switzerland, are making preparations to survive nuclear war, while the United States is not. The waging of global nuclear war will be fought within and against industrialism – industrial powers against industrial powers. The protagonists will target targets of industrial economic value, because they represent the apparent threat. (In the long term, the real threats to their system are not other industrial powers, but factors such as the passing of Hubbert’s Peak, the

destruction of the biosphere and, above all, spiritualism (which is amaterialistic and traditionalist).) After the initial destruction, the surviving technological powers will continue to target emerging technological (industrial) city-states. It should be recognized that traditional cultures that eschew industrialism will not be targeted. Because of this, traditional cultures will survive. Any culture that wishes to survive in the long run, and which cannot or does not wish to aspire to being the single high-tech nation that survives global nuclear war can also survive, if it chooses to do so. All it has to do is eschew materialism (industrial development), in which case it is not a threat either to the parties waging global nuclear war, or to the single-nation city-state that

survives it. The Corporatists who are in control now desire only to play the very exciting game of growth-based economics and massive accumulation of material wealth. This game can be played only as long as the world has large amounts of energy (from fossil fuels and uranium) and the biosphere remains relatively undisturbed. When either of these conditions ends, the game is over. The Corporatists

do not wish to play another game. When this game is over, they will “pick up their marbles and go home.” This game will be finished, and they will pass on, leaving a destroyed planet as their legacy. They do not care. They have no interest in life after fossil fuels, or life on a low-population planet, or life in a non-economic society. Their greed, selfishness, and callousness know no bounds. The fact that they will have destroyed the biosphere and reduced the quality of humyn life for all time, just to play their hedonistic game of greed for a few short years is of no concern to them. They are like the yeast in a fermenting beer vat – they explode in an orgy of growth, and then they die in their own excrement, and then they are gone, and it does not matter to them.



26/111

Nuclear War Inevitable

The perpetuation of the current Industrial society makes nuclear war inevitableCaldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

Some see a solution by means of war. Because of all of the problems being caused by mass industrialization, the likelihood of occurrence of global war and the magnitude of its consequences are increasing . The main problem with war as an approach to solving the world’s current ecological problem is that the very people who would win are the ones in

favor of global industrialization! As long as most people believe that industrial activity is the solution to the world’s problems, and that more is better, the survivors of a collapsed industrial world would simply rebuild industrial society , and the ecological destruction of the planet would resume . It does not

seem likely that forceful action (violence) is a solution to the world’s ecological problem. Too many people are committed to large humyn population and global industrialization, and too few seek a solution . If a small number of people tried to bring an end to this current world paradigm by force, they would almost certainly fail. Furthermore, a small group of people cannot control a large population against its will for very long . Global war will likely occur as part of the demise of the global industrial age, and it may be useful as a means of establishing a long-term-sustainable system of planetary management, but it is not

relevant to maintaining such a system for a long time. As long as most of the world’s population is committed to (addicted to) global industrialization, it is unlikely that a different system of planetary management would arise. As Neale Donald Walsch has argued forcefully, however, action follows belief. If the survivors of a global catastrophe believe that a resumption of global industrialization will improve things, then that is what they will seek to achieve. If, on the other hand, the survivors see clearly that global industrialization was in fact the problem – the very source of the planetary destruction – then they will seek to avoid a resumption of the industrial age . And this is the key to the solution .

With a huge stockpile of WMD’s and the bankruptcy of Russia – it’s only matter of time till rogue states/terrorist get access the nuclear weaponsCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

On January 13, 1999, the documentary television program 60 Minutes II broadcast a program about the manufacturing of plutonium in Krasnoyarsk-26, Siberia, Russia. Krasnoyarsk is an underground complex – hidden deep in a 66 mountain – containing a nuclear reactor that produces a half ton of plutonium a year. It is not the only such facility. One-half ton of plutonium is an amount

sufficient to make 100 nuclear bombs a year, or one every three days. Since its inception, the Krasnoyarsk facility has produced 40 tons of plutonium – sufficient to make 10,000 nuclear bombs . So what’s the big deal? Well, the big deal is that Russia is broke, and the workers at Krasnoyarsk have not been paid for three months. They need to keep the reactor operating, in order to provide energy for the city outside the mountain. They have no money , and they are quite upset. The US has agreed to pay some of the cost of operation of the facility, but Russia insists now that the US pay the full bill. The point to this situation is that there is a lot of plutonium in the world, with more being manufactured every day. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the bankruptcy of Russia, it is just a matter of time until “rogue” nations and terrorist groups that want plutonium will have it. It is just a matter of time until they have a lot of bombs. It is just a matter of time until a full-fledged nuclear war . The next big terrorist action against New York City will not be some dynamite or ANFO against the World Trade Center – it will be a suitcase bomb that decimates the entire city!



27/111 Nuclear war is inevitable – but only specifically planned nuclear war can solve the SQ’s inherently destructive notionsCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

At the risk of belaboring a point, I wish to explicitly state that I am not advocating or promoting a nuclear war to solve the “population problem.” Rather, I believe that nuclear war is inevitable, and that in the context of the new (post-Cold War ) world order, it is likely to happen soon . The key issue to address is

what to do when it happens. When it does happen, the humyn population may return to “business as usual,” proceed to overpopulate the world again, end up in the same situation as it finds itself today, and have another global wa r . (Note that it will not at all be “business as usual” after the war, because humynkind has now used up most of the fossil fuels and easy-to-extract minerals. The next cycle, taking place in an energy-poor, resource-poor environment, will be hard times on 67 planet Earth.) The minimal-regret population policy represents one strategy for breaking out of this cycle. If it is implemented, the planet’s ecology will be saved and the humyn population, at a modest size that exists in harmony with the rest of the biosphere, will have the time to figure out what its purpose is and develop a long-

range survival plan. Note that, by having identified the minimal-regret attack strategy (in this book), it is indeed possible that the chance that a “rogue nation” or other group may adopt it as the attack strategy when it initiates a nuclear war. I have no problem with this. In my view, if nuclear war is inevitable, the issue of which nuclear war strategy is “best” (or at least preferable) must be addressed, and the issue of what to do in the postattack context must be addressed . When nuclear war happens, I would prefer that the attacker choose the minimal-regret strategy over an alternative strategy that does not have a low likelihood of planetary destruction.

The collapse of the USSR has led to the politics of envy; also known as causing as much destruction to the enemy at whatever personal expense – nuclear will happenCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

Under the “politics of greed” – the use of politics to acquire more for yourself regardless of the effect on your opponent, it may be in the best interest of all groups to avoid nuclear war. That was the basis for the decades-long Cold War , in which neither the US nor the Soviet Union used nuclear weapons. Both would

lose more than they gained. Under the politics of greed, mutually assured destruction (MAD) works as a deterrent to war. Under the politics of envy, MAD is essentially irrelevant . What matters most is destruction of the opponent, at any cost. MAD will not save the US now that the nuclear jinn is out of the bottle, and the world is filled with unhappy have-nots with access to nuclear technology.

The odds of nuclear war are high; terrorists, hostile countries, and attempts to take over the world ensure thisCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

The likelihood of nuclear warfare in the future appears high. With respect to the likely damage a nuclear war might cause, a principal issue to address is what the likely intentions of an initiator of a nuclear war might be: to cause damage to another country (e.g., a terrorist attack on a single US city); to destroy another country (e.g., a war between India and Pakistan); or an attempt to take over the world (e.g., a ballistic-missile attack by China against the rest of the world)


28/111Proliferation of nuclear weapons makes nuclear rogue states and terrorism almost certainCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

What are the odds that a “minimal-regret” war will occur, and a minimal-regret population established? I’m not sure about the odds that a

minimal-regret population will be established, but I believe strongly that a nuclear war is inevitable. The reason for this conviction is the “politics of envy” – the desire of a “have-not” group to destroy an opponent who is better off, even if by doing so his own position is unchanged or even worsened. The politics of envy is a principal motivation of terrorist groups who attack the United States. With the proliferation of nuclear-weapon technology and weapons-grade fissionable material, it is just a matter of time until a terrorist group decides to use nuclear weapons against US cities. The US has lost control of its borders, and has accepted immigrants from all cultures into all levels of its society. It is very vulnerable.


29/111

Global Nuclear War k/2 Save Biosphere

Overpopulation causes the destruction of the biosphere only war can solveCaldwell 2Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2002[Joseph George; “On War and Peace”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnWarAndPeace.htm; Aug 7th] VL

As noted in previous articles, the current global peace has been more destructive to the planet’s biosphere and the quality of humyn life than war ever has . Peace is rapidly destroying the biosphere that evolved over the last 65 million years, and is placing the continued existence of the humyn species in peril. The biosphere is not designed for, and cannot accommodate, large-scale industrialization. Extreme overcrowding and global commingling of people is not conducive to good health of the humyn species. Global industrialization has resulted in direst poverty and deprivation for billions of humyn beings. Neither extreme war nor extreme peace can continue for very long. War and peace constitute a duality in which both conditions are essential for the good health and long-term survival of the humyn species. No species can continue to breed without some sort of process of population moderation taking place, and no species can remain

in good health without some sort of natural selection. War is essential for both of these processes. They both contribute to the health of humynkind. All animals fight for space, sustenance, and sex. This is not only natural, but essential for health and survival of the species. (Of course, no species – or nation or civilization -- survives forever – we are speaking here in relative

terms.) As Liddell-Hart noted, the purpose of war is to secure a better peace . It is also the purpose of peace to prepare for war. As Machiavelli (The Prince) o bserved, war is the single important concern of a good leader. No society will – or can – continue for very long without war. War is needed not only to moderate the population, but to temper it, to provide it with discipline, and keep it strong . A society’s military is a reflection of its civilian population. If either deteriorates in quality, the society will soon cease to exist.

Nuclear war is essential to establishing a minimal-regret population & sustainable biosphereCaldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

I mentioned earlier that the establishment of a minimal-regret population will require the use of leverage, to take advantage of certain features of the present system of planetary management to establish a new system. This is accomplished through the use of nuclear weapons . Although the construction of nuclear

weapons requires much energy and knowledge, once they are built they can be deployed and employed by a very small number of people, over a long period of time, using little energy resources. By the time they are all used, the present system (global industrialization; growth-based economics) will be gone. In

developing these weapons of mass destruction, the present system sowed the seeds of its own destruction. To accomplish the goal of setting up a minimal-regret population, it is important that these weapons be dispersed , and that the survivors of nuclear war know how and when to use them to suppress emerging industrial cities. This is the area in which the world’s nuclear powers must now focus their attention, to ensure that they prevail. Until now, most work in global nuclear war (research and development, weapon deployment, employment strategies) has been concerned with short-term war, lasting for a few days. The major nuclear powers , including the United States, Russia and

China, must restructure their forces to wage global nuclear war lasting for centuries, perhaps for a thousand

years. Only by doing this will they – their culture – survive and prevail. Only by doing this will the planet progress from the current destructive system of planetary management to a long-term-sustainable system of planetary management.


http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnWarAndPeace.htm


30/111In order for successful low-intensity nuclear it must come in four different attacks with different pay-off functions. These include a population, energy, biodiversity, and combination attacks.Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

This appendix presents an analysis showing the damage t hat can be caused to the Earth’s city population by nuclear war. Although interest centers on the damage that can be caused by low-level nuclear war (i.e., an attack of 1,000 small nuclear bombs ), damage curves are presented that show the damage over a wide range of attack sizes. The appendix begins with a discussion of the statistical distribution of city sizes, and then proceeds to examine four different types of attack. These four attacks have different “payoff functions.” The first attack targets population, the second one energy use, and the third one cities in countries having high levels of biodiversity. The fourth attack is a “combination” attack whose payoff function is a combination of population, energy use, and biodiversity

A population attack is necessary to effective population reduction and by correctly targeting certain places we can maximize our success. Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

Figure 34 shows a plot of the total population killed versus number of weapons (atomic bombs) expended, under the assumption that a single bomb detonated on a city destroys all of the population in that city. Although this is not true for very large cities, this assumption is adequate for the “policy analysis” purposes of Chapter XIII. Figure 34 is constructed by listing all of the cities in decreasing order of population (i.e., from largest to smallest), and then plotting the cumulative population of this list. (This is the same procedure used to construct the “reverse Lorenz curve” described above.) The first point on the graph is New York City, with a population of 19,670 thousand (i.e., 19 million). The last city is Mata-Utu (capital of Wallis and Futuna Islands, with population one thousand), corresponding to the cumulative population 1,639,584 thousand (which, of course, is the total

population of the city list). The curve of Figure 34 corresponds to an “optimal” attack. That is, for a specified attack level (number of weapons), there is no other selection of targets that would produce a higher total population killed. A plot such as Figure 34 is referred to as a “damage curve” or “payoff curve.” The optimal damage curve exhibits what is called “diminishing returns” – each additional weapon produces less damage (population killed) than the preceding one. From Figure 34 it is seen that an attack size of

about 1,000 weapons achieves a damage of 1.2 billion population killed, or about 74% of the entire population of the list of 3,385 cities. The attack size of 1,000 is located near what is called the “knee” of the damage curve. The knee of the curve is the point at which the marginal damage (i.e., increase in damage caused by one additional weapon) is equal to the average city size. Below (to the left of) the knee, the targets are referred to as “lucrative” – the damage caused per weapon is above the average city size. Above (to the right of) the knee, the damage caused per weapon is below the average city size


31/111An attack on industrial capacity is necessary to reduce consumption and population – it differs from the population attack by only attacking highly consumptive countriesCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

The next attack to be considered targets industrial capacity. The estimated energy consumed by each city is used as a surrogate for industrial capacity. This estimate is simply the city population multiplied by the per capita energy consumption (use) of the country in which the city is located. The procedure for determining the order of attack for the industrial-capacity, or “energy” attack is very similar to the procedure for determining the order of attack

for the population attack. The only difference is that the “payoff value” of each attack is the city’s energy consumption rather than its population. The cities are ranked in descending (decreasing) order of energy consumption; their energy-consumption rank order specifies the order in which they are attacked. Appendix I includes a list of the number of cities and population targeted for the “energy” attack. This attack does not differ a

great deal from the population attack. The major difference is that cities in very poor countries are unlikely to be attacked, even if they are rather large. This is, of course, because their total energy consumption is low, even though their populations may be rather large. Note that the order in which cities within the same country are attacked is exactly the same as for the population attack. The reason for this is that since the per capita energy consumption is taken as the same for all cities within the same country, the ranking of cities by population is exactly the same as the ranking by population times per capita

energy consumption. Figure 35 shows the cumulative energy targeted as a function of number of weapons, for the “energy” attack. Cities vary even more by energy consumption than by population, and so the proportion of target value that can be destroyed by 1,000 bombs is even greater than for the “population” attack – 83% rather than 74%. (If the Gini index of the city energy consumption distribution were calculated, it would exceed the value of the Gini index for the city population distribution.)

An attack on countries rapidly destroying their biodiversity is also necessary to account for the most of destructive humyn population.Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

The third attack considered is an attack intended to reduce humyn populations in countries having large numbers of plant species. This attack is referred to as a “biodiversity” atta ck . The reason for considering this attack strategy is that large humyn populations in countries (like Brazil) that have substantial biodiversity are rapidly destroying that biodiversity. By reducing the humyn population in these countries, the biodiversity can be maintaine d. For the biodiversity attack, the target value is taken as the city population times the number of plant species for the country. This measure of value does not have a simple physical interpretation, as did the measure of value for the population and energy attacks (i.e., city population and estimated city energy consumption). It does have the property that if two cities have the same population, then the one in the country having the larger number of plant species has a greater chance of being targeted.

(Lest there be any confusion, in the biodiversity attack it is not the plant species that are attacked, but people living in countries having large numbers of plant species.) Figure 37 shows the payoff function for the

biodiversity attack. This attack is very efficient – with 1,000 bombs, a total of 90% of the payoff value is targeted. Figure 38 shows the population killed in the biodiversity attack as a function of attack size (number of bombs). For an attack size of 1,000 weapons, 72% of the city population is targeted. The attack results in slightly less population killed than the population attack. Appendix I contains a list of the number of cities and population targeted in

each country for the “biodiversity” attack. The big difference between this attack and the preceding two is that cities in countries having large numbers of plant species are targeted, even though they may have rather modest populations. For example, all of the 187 cities of Brazil are targeted for the biodiversity attack, whereas the number of cities attacked in the USA is only 132 and the number in Canada only 3.


32/111And a combination attack of biodiversity, population, and energy attacks is prevents one-sided unsuccessful attacks and checks lack of data by spreading attack out evenly.Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

The fourth attack considered is a “combination,” or “mixture” of the three preceding ones. The order of attacking the cities is determined by a two-step process. First, the minimum of the target order under each of the three preceding attacks is calculated. For example, if a city is the second city to be targeted in the population attack, the fourth city to be targeted in the energy attack, and the 39 th city to be targeted in the biodiversity attack, then this

value is 2. While this ordering might have determined an attack order, it does not, since many cities have the same value. A second step is conducted by ranking all cities having the same first-step ranking in decreasing order of population. This two-step procedure produces a strictly ordered list of targets. (This composite ranking is specified in the field MINRNKRNKD in the Appendix H table.) Appendix I contains a list of the number of cities and population targeted in each

country for the “combination” attack. Any city that ranked highly in any of the first three attacks ranks highly in the combination attack. If a city has a large population, or has a high energy consumption, or is located in a country with a large number of plant species, it will have a good chance of being targeted in the combination attack. Figure 39 shows the payoff function for the combination attack. For this attack, the payoff is a complicated function of population, energy consumption per capita, and biodiversity

index, and so it does not lend itself to a simple interpretation. A major reason for considering the combination attack (rather than restricting attention to the energy or biodiversity attacks) is that data are missing for some of the countries (and hence all cities in those countries) for energy consumption and for biodiversity .


33/111The most cost-effective way to wage war is nuclear war and will soon be used to reduce to the population because of the Earth’s resource insufficiencies.Caldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

The most cost-effective modality of war to decrease demand for food or energy is nuclear war. Conventional war consumes vast amounts of petroleum, and is a very inefficient means to reduce population or demand for energy. Biological and chemical warfare are not as attractive tools as nuclear warfare for population reduction, for two reasons. First, they are not easily controlled

(managed). More importantly, they do not reduce the means of production, i.e., they kill only people and do not destroy capital goods (infrastructure) or the means of production (economic capital). Overproduction has always been a fundamental problem of capitalism. Conventional wars were useful means of addressing this problem because they consumed goods and destroyed infrastructure – chemical and biological warfare do not accomplish either of these. The killing of people (either directly or collaterally) was not a primary consideration in modern war, since economics thrives on scarcity; the greater the number of people who survive the

war, the greater the scarcity, the greater their desperation, and the greater the power their leaders have for controlling their lives. In the very near future, there will almost certainly be some nuclear warfare – a single or small number of nuclear detonations set off by small groups (not major states). The purpose of these attacks, conducted out of frustration or ideology, is to damage the present system of planetary management. They will not accomplish significant change. Guerilla warfare cannot be defeated, and it cannot win. In addition to sporadic nuclear attacks such as these, at some point there will be “controlled” nuclear war – low level but continuing – conducted by major global powers. The purpose of this type of nuclear war will in fact be to perpetuate the current system of planetary management, by stabilizing the demand for energy (food) through

planned and managed population reduction. It is noted that the use of nuclear war to reduce humyn population is not war in the conventional sense of two (or more) parties attempting to defeat each other (or competing with each other). The world is now controlled by Corporatists. The initial use of nuclear war will be by the Corporatist system to reduce overpopulation – in very much the same fashion as nation-states

have colluded to address overproduction in recent history. The world is already managed by a single world government, controlled by the wealthy elite, using growth-based economics as their tool. The initial nuclear destruction will be executed by the Corporatists, simply as a business decision. War in the usual

sense can be represented as a mathematical game – two or more players competing. The situation just described is not a game – it is simply a statistical decision problem (i.e., a “game against nature”), a “one-sided” optimization problem. Perhaps the term “war” is a misnomer here, except for the fact that the Corporatists will disguise the population reduction exercise as a regular war – the people will not realize that they are being exterminated by their controllers simply to reduce demand for food to manageable levels, but will mistakenly believe that it is being caused by “the enemy.” This type of war will not even qualify as “the sport of kings,” since there is only one player (a game requires two or more players). Read Orwell’s1984 for more discussion of the concept of the use of war as an instrument of economic policy (in that case, to manage overproduction, not overpopulation).

The big difference between the nuclear war about to occur and conventional wars of the past is that while the primary function of the latter was simply to consume overproduction (i.e., to promote stability by

reducing supply but maintaining economic activity (and energy utilization) at a high level), the primary function of the former will be to reduce demand (i.e., to promote stability by reducing overall economic activity (and energy utilization)), since the energy required to “drive” the system is decreasing. Formerly, a “king’s glory was in his population,” and reducing population was never a primary objective. The future war will (initially)

seek to reduce population, since there will be insufficient food to feed them, and the large number of starving people will threaten political and economic stability.



34/111Current Corporatist system will start to unravel because of overpopulation and destruction to the biosphere – only nuclear war can completely seal the dealCaldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

At some point, the single-world-government system of Corporatism (globalization; growth-based economics)

will start to unravel . This may occur for any one of a number of reasons . (It will happen eventually, for no socio-economic or political system ever lasts for very long, and it will happen very soon, because of either the biospheric destruction (sixth mass species extinction) or Hubbert’s Curve / Hubbert’s Peak (decline in global production of oil, upon which the present economic system is dependent).) For example, it may occur because there is no honor among

thieves, and one of the principal players in the global game of Corporatism may decide to take over (the “politics of greed”). Or it may occur for an ideological reason, such as a group attempting to destroy the current system of planetary management (large humyn numbers and industrial activity; growth-based economics) because it is causing the destruction of the biosphere, the sixth mass species extinction and the extinction of humynkind. At this point, after the fall of the global economic system, the waging of nuclear war will be conducted in the usual game-theoretic sense , involving more than a single player. The current system of growth-based economics is an exponential process . It is like an

explosion. The problem with explosions is that they do not last very long. The end of the global industrial world – an instantaneous “spike” on an evolutionary scale – will occur very soon .

Destruction of civilization is fundamentally apart of our historical cycle – it always comes at a time where the civilization is doing more harm than benefitCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

From a theological perspective, the Bible is replete with the destruction of cities, tribes, nations, and civilizations – even the entire antediluvian world. Sodom, Gomorrah, Babylon, Rome – even Jerusalem – all have fallen. Civilizations rise and civilizations fall. That is the natural process. They rise when they are motivated, disciplined, dynamic, principled, united, and have a sense of destiny and purpose. They fall when they become decadent, dissolute, profligate, prodigal, and lose their sense of purpose. Significant civilizations and cultures meet their demise by war and conquest, not by assimilation – by revolution rather than evolution.

Modern (industrialized) civilization is destroying the planet, wasting its bounty in the ceaseless accumulation of material wealth and insatiable pursuit of pleasure. The US is replacing the absolute morality of Christianity with relativistic inclusiveness, permissiveness and tolerance. Western Civilization and the US have replaced the religion of Christianity with the religion of economics. “In God We Trust”

is out, and economics is in. Economics is the religion of the modern, industrialized world. Economics is its system of morality, and industrial development is the graven image that it has created. It is time to take heed that “those who destroy the Earth will be destroyed.”



35/111

Post-Nuke War/Victor

More specifically, the Russians will be the victor of nuclear because of their preparation for nuclear war and their will to surviveCaldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

Perhaps the strongest indication that Russia may be the victor in global nuclear war is that Russian leaders believe that it is winnable, and they are preparing for it. Those who believe that global nuclear war is not winnable are already defeated. They will not make the preparations required to survive it, and they will not survive it. There are several things to keep in mind about global nuclear war: It is likely; it is imminent; it is survivable; it is winnable, and it is a long drawn-out affair. Many people believe that the occurrence of global nuclear war would mean the end of civilization as we know it. While that may be true in one sense, it is not true in another sense. While it is true that global nuclear war would bring about the immediate end of large-scale global industrialization, this is going to happen anyway within the next few years. “Civilization as we know it” – large humyn numbers and industrial activity – will not last more

than a few more years in any event, either because it is destroying the biosphere or because the energy to operate it will soon be gone (take your pick). All that the occurrence of global nuclear war would do is bring global civilization to an abrupt halt a few years before it would expire anyway – along with the benefit that the biospheric destruction being caused by large humyn numbers and industrial activity would immediately cease. Long-term-sustainable civilization will be a “solar” civilization of small humyn numbers living off “recurrent” solar energy. Technological civilization will

continue. Even if all of the nuclear weapons in the world were detonated, this would not kill everyone. As mentioned earlier, there are far more cities in the world than nuclear weapons, and all of them possess technology. After the initial salvos of ballistic missiles have been fired, survivors will remain, and they will start

to rebuild, since that is the nature of humyn. The war will continue, and some power will eventually prevail. Technology is “out of the box,” and humynkind’s technological existence will continue.



36/111The ultimate victor of nuclear war will be last person standing and the most prepared nationCaldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

The significant weapon system that will survive the initial salvos of global nuclear war is nuclear submarines (nuclear powered and nuclear

armed). While these can survive unsupported for many months, at some point they need re-supply. The victor must have hidden supply depots to keep its nuclear submarines operational for a couple of years. A year after the outbreak of the war, the submarines will destroy all remaining surviving cities. (They will identify surviving cities by monitoring radio activity.) Since cities “die” slowly, this process may continue for a few years, engaged in by all powers possessing nuclear submarines (e.g., the US, Russia, China, and others). At some point, the planet will “grow quiet” – there will either be no activity at all, or a single remaining city. At that point, an apparent victor will emerge. The problem that it faces is that it may possess a nuclear submarine or two, but what it needs to assume control of the planet is a city-state that can manufacture all of the items needed to control and manage the planet. This is a nontrivial challenge, and it will require substantial advance planning. The “End Game” of this global

nuclear war will last many years – perhaps 1,000 years. The players having few nuclear weapons will either be quickly destroyed, or they will wait to employ their weapons until the war between the major players (US, Russia and China) is over. They will then seek to destroy whatever residual population remains of the survivor. The ultimate victor will be the “Last Humyn Standing.” The

victor will be the party possessing the last operational nuclear weapon. Because of the uncertainties of global nuclear war, it is difficult to say which nation this might be. Groups that have the will and capacity to dominate the world include the US,

Russia, Germany, China, India, Japan, the English-Speaking world, and the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Which of them will survive is not at all clear. Because Russia has by far the most nuclear weapons, it is perhaps the most likely candidate to prevail. On the other hand, the Abrahamic religions have a tradition of global domination, genocide, and a world-view in which a Messiah will return to Earth following global destruction. Moreover, the Jews and Moslems believe in a physical Messianic kingdom, and the Moslems believe

that they can bring it about by precipitating global war. The religion and world-view of the Jews has stood them in good stead for thousands of years, and it could be the decisive factor. The fact that Judaism abandoned their central habitat and physical cohesiveness and scattered around the world, yet still cling to a belief of a “return” in the Last Days, fits well with the requirements for victory in global nuclear war. The victor will be the group that can “hold out” the longest, and still have a few nuclear weapons remaining after everyone else has used theirs. It could be that the Moslems, even though they possess just a few nuclear weapons, might “save” them until all seems “clear,” and then move to annihilate the apparent victor. As they say, all things come to him who waits.



37/111More than likely the countries ruling will either be the US, Russia, or China – the victor will take on all planetary management responsibilitiesCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

Of the several countries discussed above, at the present time only the US and Russia have the wherewithal to accomplish the objective of becoming the single industrialized controlling nation. China will, too, before long. A problem that arises for any of these is that they all have large populations, and are historically committed

to large populations. Not one of them fits the concept of a “single industrialized country of five million people,” that was mentioned earlier in the discussion of a minimal-regret planetary population concept. If any one of them were to manage assumption of world control and then continue to promote a highly industrialized level of living for its own large population, the situation would not be much improved, if improved at all, from the current situation. This aspect is not addressed here, and warrants

further consideration. Assuming that a single nation or group is successful in defeating all others after a nuclear war, the issue arises concerning the elimination of economic activity worldwide. Following the attack, some countries will still have very large residual populations. Except for China, it is out of the

question to attempt to defeat these countries by means of conventional warfare. This probably means that the single nation in charge will have to possess a strong air force, missile force, or a strong space-based military capability

Russia will most likely be the victor of nuclear war because of its vast arsenal of nuclear weaponsCaldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

It would appear that the Russians have the greatest chance of prevailing. They possess vastly more nuclear weapons than any other power, and in fact more than all other countries of the world combined. If in the initial large-scale nuclear exchange they “husband” their nuclear weapons, they can end up having thousands of nuclear weapons remaining, after all other groups have expended most of theirs. At that point, they can work to establish a single-nation high-technology state. If, through the years, any other city arises, it can be annihilated using one of their remaining weapons. If any other group possesses nuclear weapons, it will annihilate the Russian

city-state. For Russians to survive, they must have many alternative locations ready to resume the role of the single high-tech nation state. This process may continue for a long time, but eventually, since the Russians have far more nuclear weapons than all other groups, they will end up with the last weapon, and remain the victor – the “Last Humyn Standing.” All they have to assure is the capability of re-establishing high-tech nation states, if and as they are destroyed by other groups. If they do not do this, then some other group may prevail.



38/111The Russians will win because of their preparation for nuclear war and their will to surviveCaldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

Perhaps the strongest indication that Russia may be the victor in global nuclear war is that Russian leaders believe that it is winnable, and they are preparing for it. Those who believe that global nuclear war is not winnable are already defeated. They will not make the preparations required to survive it, and they will not survive it. There are several things to keep in mind about global nuclear war: It is likely; it is imminent; it is survivable; it is winnable, and it is a long drawn-out affair. Many people believe that the occurrence of global nuclear war would mean the end of civilization as we know it. While that may be true in one sense, it is not true in another sense. While it is true that global nuclear war would bring about the immediate end of large-scale global industrialization, this is going to happen anyway within the next few years. “Civilization as we know it” – large humyn numbers and industrial activity – will not last more

than a few more years in any event, either because it is destroying the biosphere or because the energy to operate it will soon be gone (take your pick). All that the occurrence of global nuclear war would do is bring global civilization to an abrupt halt a few years before it would expire anyway – along with the benefit that the biospheric destruction being caused by large humyn numbers and industrial activity would immediately cease. Long-term-sustainable civilization will be a “solar” civilization of small humyn numbers living off “recurrent” solar energy. Technological civilization will

continue. Even if all of the nuclear weapons in the world were detonated, this would not kill everyone. As mentioned earlier, there are far more cities in the world than nuclear weapons, and all of them possess technology. After the initial salvos of ballistic missiles have been fired, survivors will remain, and they will start

to rebuild, since that is the nature of humyn. The war will continue, and some power will eventually prevail. Technology is “out of the box,” and humynkind’s technological existence will continue.

To prevail in nuclear war requires a long-term perspective; the US’s democracy and culture based of growth economics lead to a valueless life and a short term demiseCaldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

To prevail in global nuclear war requires a long-term perspective, in which the future has the same “weight” as the

present. The war will take centuries to win, and waging the “peace” following global nuclear war will last eons. American leaders are only interested in the accumulation of material wealth for their Corporatist controllers. If global nuclear war were to occur, this world would be gone. Because they have discounted the future to nil, and because the world after global nuclear war is of no interest to their Corporatist controllers, it is of no importance to them and they have no plans to survive it or win it – only in preparing for it

(the production of the weapons of global nuclear warfare, such as ballistic missile defense systems, generates a lot of wealth). US culture, based on growth-based economics, has discounted the value of the future to zero. From this world-view, it has no future. (Democracy, it has been said, has a “design life” of about 200 years.) The US has no long-term strategic plan to wage, survive and win global nuclear war, and, unless it changes this mindset before it occurs, it will

not prevail. Will it change its mindset? No, it will not. The government is under the control of the Corporatists. The US government is no longer “of, by and for the people,” but for the wealthy elite, who do not care about the future of humynkind, of the biosphere, their nation (Corporatism is a global phenomenon – its members are “citizens of the world,” not of a

particular nation), their race, or even their own children. The current system has a stranglehold on the citizens – the only way that they can survive is to cooperate with it. The American people are no longer free (individual freedom really disappeared when the government closed the Land Office, in the late 1800s), and they are no longer in control of their

destiny. They are no longer in control of their government. They are now the servant of the government, and the government is in the control of the Corporatists. The Founders established a nation of, by

and for the people, but the wealthy elite hijacked this government from the people. The only way America will change its current mindset is by violent means, such as coup d’état or revolution.




39/111The US will lose because of its lack of preparation and its no will to survive because of the its ultra-materialistic and short term based cultureCaldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

The US is not likely to survive global nuclear war, for two reasons. First, it does not believe that it can, and it is not making preparations to survive. The US, it seems, has lost its will to survive. Perhaps this is because its culture has become so fragmented – the original culture that founded the country and made it great no longer exists. In its current state, it would appear that the US cannot possibly win global nuclear war, because winning global nuclear war requires much planning, preparation and long-term commitment, and the country is doing none of these things. The second reason why the US is not likely to survive a nuclear war is that its leaders have no interest in life in the post-global-nuclear-war era. While preparing for the first massive exchange of global nuclear war generates much wealth

(i.e., operation of the military-industrial complex), the occurrence (waging) of global nuclear war does not generate wealth, and the outcome of global nuclear war is far less material wealth. The leaders of the US, committed to operating a system that generates material wealth for their Corporatist controllers, are interested only in the first of these activities (i.e., preparing for global nuclear war, not for waging global nuclear war or for

living in a low-material-wealth post-global-nuclear-war world). If the US were to survive and win a global nuclear war, it would not be the materialistic, short-term-vision nation that we currently know, but a small “core” state dedicated to founding and maintaining a long-term-sustainable system. The mindset of the American people is that global nuclear war would be “the end of the world.” In the 1950s and 1960s, the US government promoted a level of “Civil Defense” (I worked for a time doing research on this program, during my time at Research Triangle Institute). This effort was abandoned when it was realized that massive casualties would result from global nuclear war and there was little point to

keep people alive if they could not be provided for – and used – in a longer term. Most of the research in global nuclear war conducted by the US in the 1960s centered on a single large-scale missile exchange, with little or no consideration of strategic planning – for war or for peace – after this exchange. (See some of my articles on global nuclear war

athttp://www.foundationwebsite.org/OptStratPage1.htm for examples of this research.) Although the US abandoned its Civil Defense program, other countries (“old” cultures, who plan to be around for a while) proceeded to prepare for the aftermath of global nuclear war, with the construction and stocking of underground tunnels. In the US, the only underground facilities are for active military personnel, not for civilians. Russia has made and continues to make preparations to wage and survive the initial large-scale nuclear war, and to wage and survive subsequent nuclear war. China and other nations, such as Switzerland, are also preparing for global nuclear war and making preparations to survive it. The main US activity with respect to global nuclear war is in the field of ballistic missile defense, and short-term war. In global nuclear war, victory will go to the nation

that develops and implements strategies and tactics that will span centuries, not just days, months, or years. Why is it that US culture is defeatist with respect to global nuclear war, whereas other cultures are not? Part of this is the fact that some of the other cultures that might survive, such as Judaism, Russia, or China, are “old” cultures. (Current US culture is a “new” culture, which has existed essentially from just the 1960s. Present-day US culture (ultra-materialistic) differs much from the libertarian culture of the country’s Founders.) These

cultures have existed for a long time, they are strong and cohesive, and they plan for the long term. Current US culture reflects its economic system – all that matters is the short term. Growth-based economics (debt-based money; interest) is an exponential process that cannot last long. Most financial decisions in the US are made on the basis of net present value (discounted cash flow, internal rate of return, economic rate of return), which reduces the effect of the future to nil. Under discounting, all decisions depend only on the amount of wealth that can be generated in the near-term future. This approach maximizes growth (unfortunately, it also assures that the lifespan of the

system will be very short). The process of discounting the future corresponds directly to the charging of interest. Discounting and interest are the same process, just in reverse (i.e., they are “inverses”). The reason why all three Abrahamic religions originally banned interest is that no society can remain stable or exist long-term if it allows it. Interest transfers all of a society’s wealth from the borrowers to the lenders. Jesus’ throwing the moneylenders out of the Temple in anger was symbolic of the antithetical nature of interest to things spiritual, such as living in harmony with humyn and with the biosphere. Discounting reduces the importance of the future to zero. Since Islam is now the only Abrahamic religion that still proscribes charging of interest, it is the only Abrahamic-religion culture whose spiritual views aligns with a long-term future for humynkind.

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OptStratPage1.htm



40/111

Synarchic Gov

The CP takes a sustainable path to social-evolution by placing emphasis on society thus separating it from the current and destructive forms of governmentCaldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On Marxism, Synarchy, Plato’s Republic, and The Omega Project”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnMarxism.htm; Jan 14th] VL

The Omega Project intends to take a different social-evolution path from the one first predicted and later advocated by Marx. That path is from capitalism to something quite different from capitalism (or socialism, or any of the other traditional forms of government) – synarchy or a Platonic republic, with a low humyn population. The evolutionary path of society predicted and then advocated by Marx is feudalism – capitalism – communism – socialism – heaven-on-earth. The evolution proposed by The Omega

Project is feudalism – capitalism – synarchy (or Platonic republic), with the synarchic society living in a Garden-of-Eden biosphere in which humynkind evolve d. A key issue that Marx did not address is: what is the purpose of the heaven-on-earth phase of humyn social evolution. The goal of The Omega Project is to establish a long-term-sustainable planet . With all of the resulting time on humynkind’s hands, it is reasonable to ask, what is the point (for humynkind) to long-term-survival of humynkind and Earth . As I have

remarked earlier, that new phase of social evolution will provide humyns with the time and conditions under which to further their spiritual development (sorely lacking at the present time ). Synarchic government of a small humyn population will provide the time and conditions under which this will occur.

Synarchy is key to effectively govern the minimal regret populationCaldwell 2Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2002[Joseph George; “A Brief Guide to Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/GuideToPM.htm; September 10th] VL

Since Earth has never had a single planetary government before, it is not possible to speak from terrestrial experience about the “best” form of planetary government for Earth. The best that can be done is

to consider alternatives, discuss them, and select a preferred alternative. To date, no form of humyn planetary population policy has been proposed, other than the minimal-regret population, for which there is a convincing argument that it has a very good chance of maintaining a healthy biosphere and assuring the long-term survival of the humyn species. (The fact that the minimal-regret global population of ten million is a feasible population that satisfies both objectives is the fact that the planet and humynkind existed in a healthy state for millions of years at this level.) The issue to address, then, is what sort of world government would be

suitable as a means of maintaining / managing a minimal-regret global population of ten million. Under the minimal-regret population concept, the world’s organized humyn population consists of a single city-state of five million peopl e . In ancient Greece, the philosopher Plato wrote extensively on the topic of social organization and government for a city-state. Most of his discussion on this topic is contained in the book, The Republic. (It is noted that the translation “republic” is not accurate – a

more accurate rendering would be “society,” or “state,” or “constitution.”) It is the goal of this organization , Solaria, to establish a planetary government system (for managing the proposed minimal-regret population) along the lines of the governmen t proposed in The Republic.


http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnMarxism.htm


41/111Though platonic governments and synarchic institutions are viable options the best option for a minimal-regret population is the hybrid of the twoCaldwell 2Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2002[Joseph George; “A Brief Guide to Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/GuideToPM.htm; September 10th] VLThere is much literature on both Plato’s Republic and on Saint-Yves’ Synarchy, and it is not the purpose of this document to present much detail

on either of these here. While either concept might serve as a general basis for a workable governmental paradigm

for responsible management of a planetary population, there are a couple of features that, in the context

of today’s world, both culturally and environmentally, differentiate between Saint-Yves’ Synarchy over the Platonic social organization as the basis for the operation of a planetary management organization, and may suggest a hybrid as a better solution. The first distinction concerns the selection of the rulers. In

Plato’s concept, they are chosen by merit. In today’s terminology, Desmond Lee notes that Plato’s governmental construct might be termed “Managerial Meritocracy.” In Saint-Yves’s Synarchy, it is not clear how the rulers are chosen, or if they are “chosen” at all. Given the world’s cultivated taste for meritocracy over the past few

hundred years, it is quite possible that many people would favor meritocracy as a means of selecting its leaders. (In neither case do the masses choose the rulers, although it is understood that the governed consent to rule by the rulers.) The second distinction concerns war. War was a constant fact of life in ancient Greece, a very important part of their culture and

religion, and an established means of population control. After global nuclear war destroys the modern industrial world, it may well be that humynkind comes to the realization that war – particularly in a technological age – is no longer a feasible means of population control. Sun Tzu noted that no society has ever

benefited from sustained war. It may well be decided after the next great war that incessant war, and uncontrolled

massive war, is no longer a desirable mode of humyn population moderation. And in this regard, Saint-Yves’ Synarchy differs significantly from the social organization of Plato’s Republic and times. If you read much about synarchy in general, and Saint-Yves’ Synarchy in particular, you will see that there is a great emphasis on peace. (See, e.g., Aïvanhov’s referenced works for discussion; also his

Under the Dove, The Reign of Peace, Prosveta, 1983, ISBN 2-85566-229-X.) The goal of Solaria, thus, is to implement a planetary management organization along the lines of Plato’s Republic, taking into account aspects of Saint-Yves’ Synarchy. Specifically, the rulers will be chosen by meritocracy (from Plato), and the emphasis will be on peace over war (from Saint-Yves).

Synarchy is the concept of one world government led by one intuition Caldwell 2Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2002[Joseph George; “The Omega Project”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheOmegaProject.htm; September 10th] VL

Because knowledge of synarchy is not widespread, I will summarize some of its basic history/features/premises (see Milko Bogaard’s article for details). Marquis Joseph Alexandre Saint-Yves d’Alveydre (1842-1909),

a French philosopher and political scientist, was alarmed at the rise of anarchy in the world, and developed the socio-political concept of synarchy in the early 1870s as a counter to it. He presented the concept of synarchy in several books written in the

1880s. The basic concept of synarchy is the establishment of a world government that is led by one institution and is based on fundamental spiritual and social principles . In developing his concept of synarchy,

Saint-Yves analyzed many different forms of government. His ideas are similar to those expressed by Plato in his Republic , in that government is controlled by an elite group of enlightened individuals (“initiates”). This governing elite controls the religious, social, political and economic institutions. A major source of inspiration for Saint-Yves was the Knights Templar (predecessors of the Masons), which he regarded as history’s ultimate expression of

synarchism. Another example of a synarchic society is the ancient Celts, whose leaders were the Druid wise men. Because of the central role of religious philosophy, synarchy is a form of theocracy.

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheOmegaProject.htm



42/111After nuclear war a synarchic government will rule over the minimal regret population. This government is elected by merit and checks harmful humyn development.Caldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On Population Control of a Synarchic Minimal-Regret Population”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnPopulation Control. Htm; July 8th] VL

The system of government, or planetary management, that I have proposed may be described either as a “Platonic” government (along the lines that Plato described in The Republic) or a “synarchic” government (along the lines described by the spiritualist, Saint-Yves d’Alveydre). Plato

calls the government rulers the “Guardians,” and Saint-Yves calls them “Enlightened Initiates.” An issue that was not addressed very satisfactorily by either of these writers is the issue of movement of the population between classes, i.e., how may a person become a Guardian (i.e., move from the “ruled” population to the Guardian class) or become an Enlightened Initiate. Plato suggests that a person would be selected by “merit” into the Guardian class, but that is about all he says about this issue. In a recent article (on the equity of a synarchic minimal-

regret population), I mentioned that I would discuss at some point the issue of population movement from the high-technology society (city-state, planetary management organization) population to the low-technology society (the hunter-gatherer population). It is not clear that this issue is a pressing concern, and it may be addressed by the leaders of the planetary management organization / synarchic government at their leisure. Since this issue (class movement) seems to be of some interest, however, I will make a

few observations relative to it, as well as the related issue of population control (both size control and genetic-diversity promotion). Since the synarchic government is in charge of the planet, it may address the issues of class movement and population control any (effective) way it pleases. What would work best in the long run, however, is a peaceful and humane and just and routine means of accomplishing these processes in an effective manner. The whole idea behind the synarchic minimal-regret population is to stop damage to the biosphere and do so without war (i.e., in a controlled manner, with “synarchy,” not “anarchy”). As has been observed many times, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” It is far better to exercise continuous, positive population control than to allow the population size grow out of control so that collapse and global war become inevitable. (I am not going to discuss the rationale behind the minimal-

regret population here, other than to note that the population size is one that has existed for millions of years without damaging the biosphere, and that with a single nation, there is no war. Local conflict between hunter-gatherer tribes is not considered “war.”)

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnPopulation%20Control


43/111Though synarchical/platonic government don’t fundamentally clash with Marxism there are several key differences – such as sustainability focus, and no authoritarianism Caldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On Marxism, Synarchy, Plato’s Republic, and The Omega Project”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnMarxism.htm; Jan 14th] VL

In summary, there is no fundamental conflict between some of Marx’s core concepts about the evolution of humyn society and the theory associated with The Omega Project; moreover, there is much general agreement. There are also, however, some strong differences. On the key point that capitalism will eventually destroy itself (and perhaps the entire biosphere in the process), there is complete agreement. On the issue of class war, which was also a core concept of Marx, there is agreement that the transition from capitalism (i.e., a high-population industrialized world) to the next system of government will very likely involve conflict (plague, famine, and war as the industrial world collapses when fossil fuels exhaust), albeit perhaps not a “class war” as envisioned by Marx. Marx envisioned that capitalism would be

replaced by communism and then socialism. On that point, The Omega Project and Marxism are quite at odds. A synarchic or Platonic-republic form of government is not communism and it is not socialism. It is synarchy or Platonic society. Marx conceived that socialism would be followed by “heaven on earth,” where he was referring to a

world of equality, freedom, and justice. The objective of The Omega Project is to establish a world in which the biosphere is essentially the Garden-of-Eden paradise in which the humyn species evolved. In the restricted sense of returning the biosphere to its status of a few hundred years ago (once again flourishing,

with only the species loss of a hundred years of global industrialization), the Omega Project is oriented toward reestablishing “heaven on earth.” But it will still be Earth, not Heaven, and it will still contain challenges and conflict. The war against economics, which has jeopardized the planet and brought it to the brink of extinction, will continue. The things that Marx deplored about capitalism were inequality, exploitation and alienation, and he believed that world society would evolve to a state in which equality, freedom

from exploitation, and true justice would prevail. Marx was not concerned with the destruction of the biosphere and extinction of humyn and other species. The Omega Project conceives a world that is long-term-sustainable, in which the humyn species can continue to exist for a very long time in the Garden-of-Eden biosphere in which it evolved. The Omega Project is concerned primarily with long-term survival (of humynkind and the biosphere), rather than with equality, exploitation of the worker, and “true justice.” The evils that Marx saw and fought were the evils produced by a world system founded on economics. The Omega Project directs its efforts toward a system of planetary management that does not involve economics – and hence does not create the evils that so bothered Marx. It is a system of planetary

management similar to running a ship (in this case, Spaceship Earth). An economics-based system is used for a laissez-faire world of many nations and uncontrolled exploitation of nature. It was a phase of Earth’s development that was an exciting, swashbuckling adventure, but it is soon to be finished.



44/111After nuclear war a synarchic government will rule over the minimal regret population. This government is elected by merit and checks harmful humyn development.Caldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On Population Control of a Synarchic Minimal-Regret Population”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnPopulation Control. Htm; July 8th] VL

The system of government, or planetary management, that I have proposed may be described either as a “Platonic” government (along the lines that Plato described in The Republic) or a “synarchic” government (along the lines described by the spiritualist, Saint-Yves d’Alveydre). Plato

calls the government rulers the “Guardians,” and Saint-Yves calls them “Enlightened Initiates.” An issue that was not addressed very satisfactorily by either of these writers is the issue of movement of the population between classes, i.e., how may a person become a Guardian (i.e., move from the “ruled” population to the Guardian class) or become an Enlightened Initiate. Plato suggests that a person would be selected by “merit” into the Guardian class, but that is about all he says about this issue. In a recent article (on the equity of a synarchic minimal-

regret population), I mentioned that I would discuss at some point the issue of population movement from the high-technology society (city-state, planetary management organization) population to the low-technology society (the hunter-gatherer population). It is not clear that this issue is a pressing concern, and it may be addressed by the leaders of the planetary management organization / synarchic government at their leisure. Since this issue (class movement) seems to be of some interest, however, I will make a

few observations relative to it, as well as the related issue of population control (both size control and genetic-diversity promotion). Since the synarchic government is in charge of the planet, it may address the issues of class movement and population control any (effective) way it pleases. What would work best in the long run, however, is a peaceful and humane and just and routine means of accomplishing these processes in an effective manner. The whole idea behind the synarchic minimal-regret population is to stop damage to the biosphere and do so without war (i.e., in a controlled manner, with “synarchy,” not “anarchy”). As has been observed many times, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” It is far better to exercise continuous, positive population control than to allow the population size grow out of control so that collapse and global war become inevitable. (I am not going to discuss the rationale behind the minimal-

regret population here, other than to note that the population size is one that has existed for millions of years without damaging the biosphere, and that with a single nation, there is no war. Local conflict between hunter-gatherer tribes is not considered “war.”)

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnPopulation%20Control


45/111Though synarchic/platonic government don’t fundamentally clash with Marxism there are several key differences – such as sustainability focus, and no authoritarianism Caldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On Marxism, Synarchy, Plato’s Republic, and The Omega Project”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnMarxism.htm; Jan 14th] VL

In summary, there is no fundamental conflict between some of Marx’s core concepts about the evolution of humyn society and the theory associated with The Omega Project; moreover, there is much general agreement. There are also, however, some strong differences. On the key point that capitalism will eventually destroy itself (and perhaps the entire biosphere in the process), there is complete agreement. On the issue of class war, which was also a core concept of Marx, there is agreement that the transition from capitalism (i.e., a high-population industrialized world) to the next system of government will very likely involve conflict (plague, famine, and war as the industrial world collapses when fossil fuels exhaust), albeit perhaps not a “class war” as envisioned by Marx. Marx envisioned that capitalism would be

replaced by communism and then socialism. On that point, The Omega Project and Marxism are quite at odds. A synarchic or Platonic-republic form of government is not communism and it is not socialism. It is synarchy or Platonic society. Marx conceived that socialism would be followed by “heaven on earth,” where he was referring to a

world of equality, freedom, and justice. The objective of The Omega Project is to establish a world in which the biosphere is essentially the Garden-of-Eden paradise in which the humyn species evolved. In the restricted sense of returning the biosphere to its status of a few hundred years ago (once again flourishing,

with only the species loss of a hundred years of global industrialization), the Omega Project is oriented toward reestablishing “heaven on earth.” But it will still be Earth, not Heaven, and it will still contain challenges and conflict. The war against economics, which has jeopardized the planet and brought it to the brink of extinction, will continue. The things that Marx deplored about capitalism were inequality, exploitation and alienation, and he believed that world society would evolve to a state in which equality, freedom

from exploitation, and true justice would prevail. Marx was not concerned with the destruction of the biosphere and extinction of humyn and other species. The Omega Project conceives a world that is long-term-sustainable, in which the humyn species can continue to exist for a very long time in the Garden-of-Eden biosphere in which it evolved. The Omega Project is concerned primarily with long-term survival (of humynkind and the biosphere), rather than with equality, exploitation of the worker, and “true justice.” The evils that Marx saw and fought were the evils produced by a world system founded on economics. The Omega Project directs its efforts toward a system of planetary management that does not involve economics – and hence does not create the evils that so bothered Marx. It is a system of planetary

management similar to running a ship (in this case, Spaceship Earth). An economics-based system is used for a laissez-faire world of many nations and uncontrolled exploitation of nature. It was a phase of Earth’s development that was an exciting, swashbuckling adventure, but it is soon to be finished.



46/111

Minimal Regret Solves

After nuclear war the population will be receptive change seeing as the Industrial Age has failed – this gives the concept of a minimal-regret population an opportunity to be established.Caldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

Although almost no one at the present time is willing to decrease industrial activity to a low level, that attitude can be changed. As observed above, the industrial era will end soon, and it will almost surely end in a catastrophic collapse (global war, disease, famine, or whatever). When that happens, the survivors will see that large- scale industrialization has failed , and they will have experienced first-hand the destruction that it has caused. They will understand the disastrous consequences of a large humyn population and global industrialization, and they will be receptive to change. It is at that time that a significant opportunity will exist

for significant and lasting change. In order for the post-catastrophe surviving humyn population to be receptive to change, it is very important that they be fully aware of the reasons for the collapse of global industrial society when it occurs, and also aware of planetary management approaches that will avoid a repeat of the destruction caused by the present system. Establishing this awareness is the primary

mission of the Foundation websites – to disseminate information describing (1) the state of the world, (2) the reasons why large-scale industrial society must collapse and do so catastrophically, and (3) planetary management approaches that will avoid further destruction and a recurrence of the experienced collapse. When most people of the world genuinely believe that global industrialization was the problem that destroyed the world, then they will act to prevent its re-emergence . It is at that time that it will be possible to establis h a planetary management system based on synarchic government of a minimal-regret global population of ten million people.

A low intensity 1000 weapon nuclear war with specific targets is key to establishing minimal-regret populationCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

The primary purpose of this book is feasibility assessment, not prediction. It is concerned with survival strategies for the planet, not for a

particular nation or group. The preceding chapters have shown that it is indeed feasible for a low-level nuclear attack to do significant damage to the world’s urban population, but not to wipe it out. The

results of this chapter show that, by itself, a low-intensity nuclear attack (1,000 weapons ) is not sufficient to destroy much of the world’s population. It would appear, then, that while a low-intensity nuclear attack may be part of a minimal-regret strategy, it must be complemented with other actions to succeed.



47/111Minimal regret works in two phases first the nuclear phase then the long-term eradication of industrial capacity which prevent ecological degradationCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?” http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

As discussed earlier, a minimal-regret war has two distinct phases – the first phase consisting of a nuclear attack on cities, and a second, long-term phase aimed at destruction of the residual industrial capacity. Because of the extreme vulnerability of the world’s cities, it is a relatively easy matter for a group to accomplish the first phase . Once the majority of the urban population has been destroyed, however, it is “a whole

new ball game,” with respect to who will prevail. Also as discussed earlier, if more than one nation prevails after the nuclear phase, humyn population and industrial activity will simply continue to grow, with no long- term change whatever from the current situation. After the nuclear phase, there will be many groups who will compete for primacy. These include not only the remnants of today’s nations, but also the many “survivalist” and paramilitary groups. After the war, each of them, and new groups as well, will have a good shot at taking over, or at least of establishing 111 territorial fiefdoms. Most paramilitary militia or suvivalist groups in the US are not well organized, however, so most of them will not survive.

A population of 10 million consisting of one industrialized country and hunter-gathers is the best candidate for a minimal regret populationCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

While there may be many solutions to the minimal-regret approach to determining humyn population size, the following is one possible solution: Candidate minimal-regret population: A global humyn population of 5 million hunter-gatherers and a single industrialized country of 5 million. The “candidate minimal-regret population” consists, first, of a very-low-density global population of hunter-gatherers. Why 5 million? Because it appears from archeological evidence that the planet was able to support about 5 million hunting-gathering humyn beings for hundreds of thousands of years, without causing substantial changes to the biosphere . (In How Many People Can the Earth Support? Cohen discusses estimates of prehistoric

global humyn population sizes; accepted estimates include the ranges 5-10 million and 2-20 million. Cohen accepts the range 2-20 million as credible. We shall use the range 2-20 as an interval estimate and the figure 5 million as a point estimate. See also Lynn Collins’ article, “World Population,” in International Encyclopedia of

Population.) There is justification for believing this to be a sustainable level, because it proved to be so for hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of years. This belief is based on actual experience , not on conjecture. Since there are about 12.5 billion hectares of habitable land on the planet, a population of 5 million corresponds to a density of about four people per hundred square kilometers. This is about what the population and population density of humyn hunter-gatherers was believed to be in prehistoric times


48/111The CP advocates a population of 10 million people – 5 million who are hunter gathers and the other 5 million make up the industrialized nationCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

For simplicity, the “candidate minimal regret population” of 5 million industrialized humyn beings and 5 million hunter-gatherers might be referred to as a “5-5” or “double-nickel” population (or

population policy). It is important to recognize, however, that the sizes of 5 million industrial humyn beings and 5 million hunter-gatherers are somewhat arbitrary, although they are of the right order of magnitude.

Minimal Regret theory solves bestCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

The essential difference in the minimal-regret approach and other approaches that have been considered or proposed is that

there is no attempt to maximize the humyn population size. Emphasis is instead on long-term survival of the humyn race and the planet’s ecology (i.e., of all other species), regardless of the size of the humyn population. The “minimal-regret” approach differs significantly from the “minimum- population size” approach (mentioned earlier in the chapter on carrying capacity), which was concerned with determining the minimum-sized population that could enjoy a high standard of living indefinitely. With the minimal-regret approach there is no attempt to maximize either the number of humyn beings or the humyn

standard of living. The emphasis is on maximizing the likelihood of long-term survival of the humyn race and preserving the planet’s natural environment, not on the hedonistic goals of maximizing humyn’s pleasure or number. The minimal-regret approach also differs significantly from the “optimal population-size” approach proposed by the Optimum Population Trust. The rationale for the “optimal population size” is not at all clear. Why should there be any attempt to maximize the size of the humyn

population at all, when the humyn population has been so destructive to the planet and other species and itself? The optimal population approach has the appearance of a “bribe,” or perhaps an “apologia” – if humynkind would just agree to a smaller population size, then everybody could have a high standard of living. This approach appeals to humyn’s greed, and that may enhance its chance of acceptance. But in the attempt to maximize the humyn population at all, it continues to accept, indeed promote, a substantial risk of destruction of other species and the humyn species. The risk of species extinction (our own as well as other species) is reduced by minimizing the level of humyn population and economic activity, not by maximizing it! To survive, the humyn race is going to have to minimize its use of energy, not maximize it. This approach is diametrically opposed to economics, which is committed to maximizing the use of energy (since that maximizes economic activity).


49/111A population of 10 million is neither too much nor to less and prolongs the existence of our speciesCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

If 5 million, why not a larger number, such as 10 million or 20 million or 100 million? Well, the evidence is that Earth sustained about 2-20 million hunter-gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years, not 100 million. Hence 10 million or even 20 million is supportable by experience, but there is no strong experiential evidence that

100 million humyn beings existed for hundreds of thousands of years. Since there is no need for additional people there is no reason to “take a chance” with a larger number . It seems safest to take a number low in the range 2-20, and the number 5 was selected for that reason. If 5 million, why not a smaller number, such as 1 million, or a hundred thousand? Two reasons: First, the evidence is that a humyn population size of 2-10 million was sustainable , not one million, not 100 thousand. As the population size decreases or becomes more localized, the chance of extinction increases. To maximize

the probability of survival of the humyn species, it seems prudent to restrict the population size to an established (or

accepted) sustainable size (2-20 million), rather than some other, unproven, level, and to spread it over the Earth.

One industrialized country is key to check hunter-gather evolution into the present state and the absence of other industrialized countries prevents consumption, war, and competitionCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

So much for the low-density global population of 5 million hunter-gatherers. Now, what about the second component of the candidate minimal-

regret population -- the single industrialized country of 5 million? The reason for specifying a small industrialized country in addition to the global hunter-gatherer population is that, now that technology is “out of the bag,” there is no reason to believe that a hunter-gatherer population of 5 million would not (quickly) evolve to an agricultural society, and then to an industrial society, and then once again to extreme size. The purpose of the single industrial country is to restrict the size of the hunting- gathering population to 5 million. This is done by destroying any evidence of economic activity , such as the development of farms or large villages. Why a single industrialized country of 5 million, and not two or more? Because if there are two or more, there is a strong incentive to grow. The strength of a nation

is proportional to its level of economic activity. At a given level of development, its strength is proportional to its population. If there are two industrialized nations on the planet, each will attempt to grow in size (population and economy) in an attempt to maximize its security. With a single industrialized 56 nation, there is an absence of modern war. With two or more countries, war is inevita ble . Why the size 5 million for the single

industrialized country? This number is speculative. The desired size is the smallest size that can support an industrial society capable of restricting the rest of the planet to a hunting-gathering mode. If a single nation of one million could do the job, then the desired size of the industrial society would be one million. If the minimum sustainable size of an

industrial society is 10 million, then the desired size is 10 million. In any event, the desired size is the minimal possible size of an industrial society, because of the large amount of waste generated by an industrial society . The minimal size of an industrial society is not presently known. The value 5 million is a “rough guess.” Maybe one million could do the job. Maybe 20 million is required. The issue of determining the minimal sustainable size of an industrial population requires further analysis.


50/111An industrialized country and hunter-gathers form a symbiotic relationship the absence of one will inevitably to many scenarios of extinction.Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?” http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

A final point, to elaborate on something that was discussed briefly above. What is the purpose of having a hunter-gatherer society at all? Why not just have a single industrialized population of five million, or other minimum sustainable size, as in the "minimum population" approach. As mentioned earlier, the purpose of the hunter-gatherer society is to increase the odds of long-term survival of the humyn race. Any

population that is very localized -- and a small industrial population will be localized -- is in danger of extinction. In the case of a single industrial population of five million, a few nuclear weapons or an asteroid could easily extinguish the entire population. Having a hunter-gatherer population distributed around the globe significantly promotes the likelihood that the humyn race will survive this type of catastrophe. In other words, the hunter-gatherer population and the industrialized populations need each other. They form a symbiotic relationship. The small, industrialized population keeps the size of the hunter-gatherer

population (and hence global humyn population) in check; the hunter-gatherer population is insurance against catastrophic destruction of all humynkind . The hunter-gatherer population also provides the industrialized population with a raison

d'être. Preserving humynkind and a Garden-of-Eden balance of nature on Earth may be a reasonable mission or goal statement, but it is too general for use as an operational objective. Maintaining a hunter-gatherer population in check is a specific, tangible objective -- a reason for getting up each morning and going to work. Attributes of the Minimal-Regret Population Policy The primary objective in specifying the size of the industrial and hunter-gatherer populations is to minimize the amount of energy controlled by humynkind, and to let nature do its job in maintaining a Garden-of-Eden balance. This is totally the opposite of the current approach of attempting to maximize the amount of energy 57 controlled by humynkind. Instead of using 40-50% of the energy produced by photosynthesis for humyn’s exclusive purposes, the goal would be to utilize a minimal amount, say 1% or less, for humyn’s purposes. Humynkind got into trouble when its numbers and activity increased to the point at which it started making measurable changes to the planet’s environment. The minimal-regret population would return control of the planet’s ecosystem to nature, with minimal interference from humyn

Reverting back to primitive agriculture would eventually lead us to the same type brink situation - hunter-gathers are specifically key to solving for industrializationCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

Another question: why restrict the worldwide humyn population to hunter-gatherers? Why not consider primitive agriculture (i.e., preindustrial, “organic gardening” agriculture without the use of industrial chemicals such as

pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers)? The answer is twofold. First, primitive agriculture lasted only 10,000 years, not hundreds of thousands of years, before it evolved into industrial agriculture. There is, then, far less experiential evidence that a global agricultural humyn society is sustainable . Second, agriculture has been very destructive of other species . With the domestication of wild animals, entire species were eliminated (e.g., the aurochs). Massive areas of forest were cleared, resulting in the extermination of local species. Even primitive agriculture is a sufficiently advanced mode of economic activity to enable massive civilizations (e.g., the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans) to arise, with their resultant plundering and destruction of nature. It is possible

that humyn society could thrive in a sustainable fashion with primitive agriculture; it is perhaps too soon to dismiss it as a feasible alternative. The main reason against it is that, although it may be sustainable, it is more destructive than hunter-gatherer society, and for what good purpose? Also, it would be more difficult to manage a planet of primitive agriculturalist s than a planet of hunter-gatherers, since agriculturalists are more organized (a higher level of development). In order to accept the greater difficulty and higher level of risk associated with primitive agriculture, it would have to be clear that the benefits outweighed the increased difficulty and risk.


51/111Though industrialization comes with some risk, the CP minimizes it to the greatest extent and it is key to sustainability through stopping hunter-gathers from evolving and effective planet management. Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

The role of the industrial society of 5 million is planetary management. The current approach of having 229 countries, each champing at the bit to grow in economic size or population size or both, is a complete disaster. It is the same as having a ship with 229 captains – 229 greedy, venal captains! Recent experience has shown that the current system – permissive, undisciplined, economics-based – is making planetary-level changes in the planet’s atmosphere and biosphere, to the point where the continued existence of the biosphere as we know it is jeopardized. With respect to the global hunter-gatherer population, the candidate population size has been proven by experience to be sustainable. But the addition of the 5 million industrial population introduces an aspect that

was not a part of long-term humyn history. The question arises as to whether an industrial society of 5 million is sustainable . It may be or it may not be. Without it, however, the global hunter-gatherer population would surely develop and grow. There is a risk associated with any level of industrialization, but the candidate population minimizes that risk by setting the size of the industrial population as low as possible.

For our species to survive we must maintain the Earth’s environments to their best shapes and to advance we must discontinue – only a minimal regret population would solveHeilbroner 97Heilbroner; American economist and historian @ Harvard University; 97[Robert; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; n/a] VL

Heilbroner discusses conditions for long-term survival of humynkind. The first is the achievement of a secure terrestrial base for life. “ The Earth must be lovingly maintained, not consumed nor otherwise despoiled. The atmosphere, the 60 waters, and the fertility of the soil must be protected against poisoning of any kind from humyn activities. The population of the globe must be stabilized at levels easily accommodated to the Earth’s carrying capacity under technological and social conditions that we – and presumably they – would find agreeable.” He notes that the attainment of this civilizational advance is impossible, since it entails the absence of any socio-economic order whose continuance depends on ceaseless accumulation.

Heilbroner believes that for civilization to advance, the world must be made safe from war . He cites two ways in which this may be done: The first is effective global government, and the second is its abolition . He

views the second alternative (a denationalized world of independent settlements, villages, and communities) as practical if humynkind engages in a global war that destroys nations and leaves large

areas uninhabitable. He views the first alternative (world government) a feasible approach if a catastrophic global war does not occur. The minimal-regret paradigm described in this book is in a sense a hybrid of both approaches : a single, small national government that maintains the rest of the world in a hunter-gatherer mode (of denationalized, independent settlements).

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf


52/111The Grand Strategy for the establishment of a minimal regret population is as follows:Caldwell 2Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2002[Joseph George; “Strategy for Global Domination and Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/Strategy.htm; May 1st] VL

1. Do not undertake a direct attempt to overtake the world’s political establishment by force. Any sort of “frontal attack” would be quickly attacked and quashed. Wait until the industrial world cripples itself in global war, and then act.2. Establish a moral basis for the establishment of a minimal-regret population (e.g., The Church of Nature).

3. Establish a number of alternative plans for accomplishing the desired goal . (Science fiction readers may reflect on the role of Isaac Asimov’s Second Foundation.)

4. Publicize widely the fact that the industrial world is coming to an end, and that, of the various alternatives, a minimal-regret population is the best planetary organization to replace it. Make it very clear that the next phase of humyn existence on the planet can be very rewarding, if a minimal-regret population is established. Show what the world can transition to . Show that the transition is a game that any world leader surviving global war would want to play.

5. Make the appeal of a minimal-regret population so strong to the surviving nations of global war that, whoever they may be, they will embrace the concept . 6. Develop contingency plans for the survivors of global war, so that they may examine them in advance and make preparations to implement them when global war occurs. Suggested plans will be public.

Which countries choose to implement them will be hidden from public view. All it takes is one country with the foresight to seize the initiative after global war, to establish a new, viable, world order to replace the industrial world that is ravaging the planet and engendering humyn misery on a massive scale.

Some amplification on point four…. At the present time, no world leaders are willing to acknowledge that the industrial world is drawing to a close, or doing anything significant about stopping the destruction of the biosphere by industrialization and large humyn numbers. Current world leaders are quite comfortable with the “game” that they are playing. They are highly successful at it. The fact that all of nature is being destroyed by the current system (industrialization, globalization, large humyn population) does not concern them. They are, understandably, not the least bit interested in a world in which their culture and milieu for success is gone. Their attitude is not

surprising. World history has seen again and again the failure of political, military, and social leaders to plan for world changes that eliminate the society (nation, culture, religion) of which they are in charge. If war comes and they are no longer in charge, so be it, but they have no interest at all in planning for a future in which they or their children have no place. Because of this universal attitude, however, implementation of a plan for world

domination / planetary management in which there is no place for them will not be easy. They will reject any significant actions, or even plans, to set up a post-industrial world, because it is not their world. Most people relate solely to the current social context in which they find themselves. When global war occurs, current world leaders will either be dead or

discredited. This is a major factor explaining why current leaders have no interest in addressing the environmental and ecological problems facing the world. The destroyed world of the next year or decade is of no interest to them – even discussion of it is objectionable, because it shows the irrelevance or wrongness of what they are doing.

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/Strategy.htm


53/111Unlike the SQ the high tech industrialized nation would complement the primitive hunter-gathers thus prolonging the lifespan of our species Caldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

One of the fascinating aspects of the minimal-regret population proposed in Can America Survive? is the fact that

it allows for and promotes both a high-technology society and low-technology societies on the planet. At the present time, the high-technology culture (Young Culture, in the terminology of Thom Hartmann) is exterminating the primitive culture (Older Culture). (It is also exterminating itself.) In a minimal-regret-population world, both cultures exist in harmony. The high technology culture (the synarchic government) promotes the survival of the low-technology culture – that is its primary mission, its reason for existence, its meaningful work (its secondary mission is advancement of scientific and spiritual knowledge). The low- technology society preserves the tribal community life that is so meaningful to humyn existence. Humyn beings are able to develop both in a high-technology culture and a low-technology culture. Both exist on the same planet in a symbiotic relationship: the high-technology culture protects the low-technology culture (and ensures its own continued existence) by preventing the rise of mass (global) industrialization. The low-technology culture, dispersed over the planet and with limited intermingling, promotes greater diversity of the humyn species and dramatically reduces the likelihood of humyn- species extinction from a localized catastrophic incident (because of geographic dispersion and very limited intermingling).

The role of the industrialized nation is to continue tech advances and for the hunter-gathers it is to reduce the likelihood of extinctionCaldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

To recapitulate, the minimal-regret population strategy consists of a single high-tech nation of a low population (e.g., five million) and a globally distributed low-technology population of five million hunter-gatherers. The role of the high-tech nation is to maintain the planetary humyn population at

a low level, by prohibiting economic development anywhere on the planet. Technological development and activity will be

allowed only in the single high-tech nation. The role of the low-tech nation is to reduce the likelihood of extinction of humynkind from a single localized catastrophic event to a low level.

To establish a minimal-regret population technological and economic development must be suppressed by any means necessaryCaldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

To implement the minimal-regret strategy, the high-tech nation must be able to suppress economic development everywhere on the planet outside of it. Since technology is already out of “Pandora’s Box,” technological

knowledge is everywhere on the planet. To implement the minimal-regret strategy , the globally distributed population must either be convinced not to use technology , e.g., via religion, or they must be “blasted back to the stone age.” Which of

these approaches will be used will be determined by the victor of the global nuclear war. In the short term (of a thousand years or so), industrial development may be suppressed simply by using the nation’s remaining nuclear weapons to destroy emergent cities. In the long run, since the supply of nuclear weapons will eventually deplete or exhaust (and a small city-state is unlikely to be able to produce

more), and since it is not possible to maintain control over a population for a long period of time either by political force or by religion, it would appear that the victor would have to use

spiritual means to convince people to eschew technology. In either event, to assume control of the planet in the near term, the victor must possess a means of monitoring the entire planet, at least for several hundred years, until the globally distributed population “forgets” technology and reverts to primitive (non-technological; hunter-gatherer) society. To do this, the victor must have access to bases around the world. Some of these may be secret bases set up prior to the war, but for the most part they will be established after the war, making use of surviving infrastructure.





54/111Modern industrialization is the root cause of all ecological and environmental impacts – a shift to a hunter-gather population is the only way to stop these impactsCaldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

Without modern industrialization, the humyn population did not have much impact on Earth’s ecology. In a hunter-gatherer mode (on the order of five million people globally), it had practically no impact at all – it was just one minor mammalian species, living off the land. Even with primitive agriculture (on the order of 250 million people globally),

it did not have a large impact. The world’s tropical forests and oceans remained pretty much as they had for millions of years, and humynkind’s use of natural materials caused little impact on the planet’s biodiversity. The big change occurred when humynkind began to use modern technology, tap fossil fuels on a large scale, and increase its population dramatically. The planet can support a few hundred million people living under primitive (agricultural) conditions, or about five million living a high-technology lifestyle, without causing major disruption to the

biosphere. Examples of long-term sustainable humyn populations are : about 5-20 million hunter- gatherers; or about 250 million primitive-agriculture people; or about five million high-technology people ; or the latter together with a small number of hunter-gatherers (e.g., five million). In other words, the “carrying capacity” of the planet is from about five million people to a few hundred million, depending on the level of technology , and the greater the level of technology (energy use, pollution generation), the fewer the people that can be supported long-term. Whatever the total number of humyn beings, the macroscopic impact of the humyn species on the biosphere must be very small, for that population to be sustainable in the long term. If humynkind is to be able to stop the ongoing mass species extinction, it is necessary to dramatically reduce the level of industrial activity on the planet. Economic development and industrial activity are the problem, not the solution. The problem is how to bring about and maintain a reduction in industrial activity, when almost everyone wants more.



55/111A minimal regret population solves mass species extinction, destruction of the biosphere, value to life, poverty, and a host of inherently evil impacts that are furthered by the aff.Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

The candidate minimal-regret population puts a n immediate halt to large-scale industrial activity. It restores the planet’s biosphere as close as possible to the way it was prior to the massive changes brought about by agriculture and industrialization. It reduces the likelihood of an industrially induced

planetary disaster (e.g., greenhouse-gas disaster, biodiversity “meltdown”) to a low, near preindustrial level. It raises the likelihood of humynkind’s survival back to what it has been for hundreds of thousands of years. It saves the planet for future generations. It bequeaths the same planet to each future generation. It

rejects the notion that this planet is the chattel of the current generation to destroy for all time. It accomplishes all of these desirable outcomes. It restores to all other species the freedom and ability to continue to exist. All that is denied to humynkind 58 is the freedom to propagate to the limit and to destroy all earthly species, including itself. Many people do not realize how high the quality of life is in a hunting-gathering society. Robert Heilbroner discusses this in his book, Visions of the Future: The Distant Past, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Quoting economist Vernon

Smith, he observes that ever since Thomas Hobbes there has prevailed the perception that life in hunting- gathering societies was (to quote Hobbes) “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” but that this perception is quite incorrect. Hobbes’ contention was that the desire for power leads to a state of nature where life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hunting-gathering life was, in fact, relatively easy – hunter-gatherers were the original affluent society . Although people did not have much in the

way of material possessions, no one was poor . Poverty is a social condition that was created by civilization. It is desire for power, enabled by agriculture and industry, that leads to inhuman inhumyn conditions, not natural life in a hunter-gatherer society. This is a very important point. Poverty and its associated humyn misery are caused by civilization, by economic development, by industrial activity . Poverty does not exist in a hunter-gatherer society. Humyn lives in balance with nature, and there is good physical, mental, and emotional health. The UN, World Bank, and other economic development organizations call incessantly for more economic development. They have created a religion of development, playing on people’s fear and greed. They deceive and seduce, insisting that humyn welfare can be improved only with increased economic development, empowerment, and elimination of inequality . They cite all sorts of maxims and platitudes, such as “Development that perpetuates today’s inequalities is neither sustainable nor worth sustaining,” or “Short-term advances in humyn development are possible – but

they will not be sustainable without further growth. Conversely, economic growth is not sustainable without humyn development,” or “Humyn development and economic growth should move together, strongly linked” (UN Humyn Development Report 1966). Tell a big enough lie, and people will believe it. Economic development is not the solution to humyn misery, it is the cause of it. To eradicate poverty , it is necessary to get rid of economic and industrial development. More development will inevitably lead to more poverty and humyn misery. Humyn misery exists on a massive scale because industrial development exists on a massive scale. To reduce the level of humyn misery, it will be necessary to reduce the level of industrial developmen t . The Economist (“The Sea: A Second Fall,” May 23, 1998) seconds this viewpoint. It equates the eviction of

Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden with the end of hunter-gatherer society. It is agricultural and industrial society that is harsh and brutal, not hunting-gathering society. God told Adam, “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the 59 ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and dust you will return.”

The Economist observes that farming was the antithesis of nomadic life, with rotten teeth and stunted bones replacing healthy bodies.


56/111

To establish a minimal-regret population technological and economic development must be suppressed by any means necessary Caldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

To implement the minimal-regret strategy, the high-tech nation must be able to suppress economic development everywhere on the planet outside of it. Since technology is already out of “Pandora’s Box,” technological

knowledge is everywhere on the planet. To implement the minimal-regret strategy , the globally distributed population must either be convinced not to use technology , e.g., via religion, or they must be “blasted back to the stone age.” Which of these approaches will be used will be determined by the victor of the global nuclear

war. In the short term (of a thousand years or so), industrial development may be suppressed simply by using the nation’s remaining nuclear weapons to destroy emergent cities . In the long run, since the supply of nuclear weapons will eventually deplete or exhaust (and a small city-state is unlikely to be able to produce more), and since it is not possible to

maintain control over a population for a long period of time either by political force or by religion, it would appear that the victor would have to use spiritual means to convince people to eschew technology. In either event, to assume control of the planet in the near term, the victor must possess a means of monitoring the entire planet, at least for several hundred years, until the globally distributed population “forgets” technology and reverts to primitive (non-technological; hunter-gatherer) society. To do this, the victor must have access to bases around the world. Some of these may be secret bases set up prior to the war, but for the most part they will be established after the war, making use of surviving infrastructure.



57/111

Caldwell’s Résumé

Don’t worry – Caldwell’s qualified – here’s his resume[http://www.foundationwebsite.org/jgcdev20121116.htm; NA] VL EDUCATION: PhD, Statistics, 1966, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NCBS, Mathematics, 1962, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA Key Qualifications Management Experience. Organizational, contract and project manager. Management approach: Standards-based quality management (ISO 9000). Management positions include: Manager of contract research firm (seven years); successful bidder on numerous technical contracts, including four Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) contracts; Director of more than twenty technical projects; Adjunct Professor of Statistics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; Director of Management Systems (chief information officer) with the Bank of Botswana (Botswana’s central bank); Manager of Research and Development and Principal Scientist of US Army Electronic Proving Ground Electromagnetic Environmental Test Facility. Management Consultant / Consulting Statistician / Research Director / System Developer. Consultant in statistics (experimental design; sample survey design and analysis; descriptive and analytical survey design; time series analysis); optimization (constrained optimization; Lagrangian optimization; game theory); operations research; information technology (systems and software engineering; system development; management information systems (MIS); database design; geographic information systems (GIS); information technology (IT) management); demography (population projections, synthetic estimation); economics (tax policy analysis; cost-benefit analysis; econometrics); program planning, monitoring and evaluation; policy analysis; strategic planning and analysis. Consultant to US government agencies, state governments, corporations and foreign governments. Experience in many application areas, including economics, banking, health, education, social services, industrial operations research and military systems. Director / supervisor of projects in the areas of:

· monitoring and evaluation (M&E); program impact evaluation; planning and policy analysis of government programs in health, education, humyn services, urban problems, rural development, agriculture and environment; economics (public finance, tax policy analysis, cost-benefit analysis, econometrics); institutional development

· information technology: systems and software engineering; developer of computer models and software packages; management information systems / geographic information systems design and implementation; personnel management information system (PMIS); education management information system (EMIS); database system design and development; data modeling; experienced in use of software development standards, ISO-9000 Quality Management, ISO 12207 Information Technology, Carnegie-Mellon University Software Engineering Institute Capability Maturity Model); engineering (communications-electronics; coding theory).

· international development in Jamaica, Honduras, Ghana, Namibia, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Liberia, Timor-Leste, Zambia, Botswana, Bangladesh, Malawi, Egypt, the Philippines, and Haiti

· operations research and systems analysis in the textile and pharmaceutical industries, civil defense and military applications

· military weapon systems analysis (US Department of Defense and Departments of the Navy, Army and Air Force) in the areas of ballistic missile warfare; naval general purpose forces; naval ocean surveillance; tactical air warfare; communications-electronics; test and evaluation; simulation and modeling; optimization and game theory; system development and automated scenario generation

Teaching and Technical Training. Adjunct Professor of Statistics at University of Arizona; developer and presenter of technical seminars in Sample Survey Design and Analysis and Statistical Design and Analysis in Evaluation. Training of information-technology professionals (institutional development) in Malawi, Zambia and Botswana (management information systems in Malawi and Zambia, and banking applications in Botswana). Training of professors in impact evaluation in the Philippines.

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/jgcdev20121116.htm


58/111Note: A detailed curriculum vitae (not restricted to international development) is posted at http://www.foundationwebsite.org/jgccveuformat20121116.pdf. LANGUAGES: English (native); working knowledge of French and Spanish; limited German and Arabic (for transportation, household use). Rudimentary knowledge of Portuguese (some use in Timor-Leste and Portugal). COMPUTER LANGUAGES: Statistical program packages (Stata, SAS, SPSS); programming languages (Fortran, C, Visual Basic); database development systems (dBASE, Microsoft Access, SQL, some Oracle, Informix); ESRI ArcView geographic information system (GIS). Much experience with Microsoft Integrated Development Environment (Visual Studio / .NET Framework, Visual Fortran, Visual C, Visual Basic, Visual FoxPro, Front Page). Some experience with Unix-based systems. GEOGRAPHIC EXPERIENCE: United States of America, Haiti, Philippines, Egypt, Malawi, Canada, Ghana, Bangladesh, Botswana, Zambia, Timor-Leste, Portugal, Guinea, Liberia, Honduras, Germany, Namibia, Burkina Faso, Jamaica. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS: Institute for Management Sciences and Operations Research (INFORMS), American Statistical Association, Institute of Mathematical Statistics, American Evaluation Association HONORS / AWARDS: Tau Beta Pi National Engineering Honorary Society, General Motors Scholarship (Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh), NASA Fellowship (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). PUBLICATIONS: Over eighty publications in the areas described above, and books on tax reform and global population (list available on request). Many articles on diverse topics (statistics, energy, environment, politics, tax reform, music, guitar, defense, religion / spirituality / philosophy, science fiction). Sample publications (mostly with links for Internet access):

1. Caldwell, J. G., Synchronizable Error - Correcting Codes , Ph.D. Doctoral Dissertation, Institute of Statistics Mimeo Series No. 469, Department of Statistics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1966.

2. Bose, R. C. and J. G. Caldwell, "Synchronizable Error-Correcting Codes," Information and Control, 10, 1967. Posted at http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SynchronizableErrorCorrectingCodes.pdf.

3. Caldwell, J. G., T. S. Schreiber, and S.S. Dick, Some Problems in Ballistic Missile Defense Involving Radar Attacks and Imperfect Interceptors, ACDA/ST-145 SR-4, Special Report No. 4, Lambda Corporation / US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1969. Unclassified summary (Optimal Attack and Defense for a Number of Targets in the Case of Imperfect Interceptors, 31 July 2001) of mathematics posted at Internet websitehttp://www.foundationwebsite.org/OptStratTerminalDefense.htm.

4. Caldwell, J. G., Subtractive Overlapping Island Defense with Imperfect Interceptors, ACDA/ST-166, Lambda Corporation / US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1969 (Secret). Unclassified summary (27 August 2001) of mathematics posted at Internet website http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SubtractiveOverlappingIslandDefense.htm.

5. Caldwell, J. G., Documentation for the time series analysis program: TIMES, Lambda Corporation, 1970. Extract TIMES Box-Jenkins Forecasting System, Reference Manual, Volume I, Technical Background, (revised March 1971,,reformatted September 2006), posted at http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TIMESVol1TechnicalBackground.pdf ).

6. Caldwell, J. G., Conflict, Negotiation, and General - Sum Game Theory , Lambda Paper 45, Lambda Corporation, 1970. Reprint posted at Internet website http://www.foundationwebsite.org/Conflict.htm.

7. How to Stop the IRS and Solve the Deficit Problem, book on reform of the US tax system, Vista Research Corporation, Sierra Vista, Arizona, 1987 (427 pages). Republished as The Value-Added Tax: A New Tax System for the United States, posted at Internet web site http://www.foundationwebsite.org/VAT.htm .

8. Caldwell, J. G., Can America Survive?, June 6, 1999, November 21, 2000. Book on relationship of global population and environment to fossil fuel availability. Posted at Internet web sitehttp://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm . Methodology for large-scale nuclear war posted

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/VAT.htm

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/Conflict.htm

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TIMESVol1TechnicalBackground.pdf

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SubtractiveOverlappingIslandDefense.htm

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OptStratTerminalDefense.htm

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SynchronizableErrorCorrectingCodes.pdf

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/jgccveuformat20121116.pdf


59/111(Optimal Attack in the Case of No Defense, 17 July 2001) posted athttp://www.foundationwebsite.org/OptStratNoDefense.htm.

9. Caldwell, J. G., How to Play the Guitar by Ear (for mathematicians and physicists), 6 February 2000, updated 3 November 2002. Posted at Internet web site http://www.foundationwebsite.org/Guitar.htm. Related article, How to Play the Guitar by Ear in Six One-Hour Lessons (21 August 2008, updated 30 August 2008) posted at http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HowToPlayTheGuitarByEar6HourCourse.htm . Summary of Music Theory (11 May 2002) posted at http://www.foundationwebsite.org/MusicTheorySummary.htm.

10. Caldwell, J. G., DESTINY 2005 Demographic Estimation, Forecasting and Analysis System, Description of Capabilities, International Version 3.0.01, 1982, 1995, December 26, 2005, posted athttp://www.foundationwebsite.org/DestCapINTL.pdf.

11. Caldwell, J. G., A Lagrangian Approach to Customer Relationship Management: Variable-Rate Pricing Strategy, 9 August 2006. Posted at Internet web site http://www.foundationwebsite.org/LagrangianApproachToCRM.htm.

12. Caldwell, J. G., The Box-Jenkins Forecasting Technique, June 1971, reformatted September 2006. Posted at http://www.foundationwebsite.org/BoxJenkins.pdf.

13. Caldwell, J. G., Sample Survey Design for Evaluation (The Design of Analytical Surveys, 20 March 2009, updated 16 June 2010, posted at http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSurveyDesignForEvaluation.pdf.

14. Caldwell, J. G., Determination of Sample Size for Analytical Surveys, Using a Pretest-Posttest-Comparison-Group Design, 19 August, 2011, posted athttp://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSizeEstimationAnalyticalSurveysGeneric.htm.

15. Design Report, Design and Implementation of MCA Honduras Program Evaluation, NORC at the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL and Bethesda, MD), Millennium Challenge Corporation, Washington, DC., April 10, 2011. Posted at Internet web site http://www.mcc.gov/documents/reports/report-042011-design-hon-transportation-and-farmer-training.pdf.

16. Final Report (Revised), Impact Evaluation of the Farmer Training and Development Activity in Honduras, NORC at the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL and Bethesda, MD), Millennium Challenge Corporation, Washington, DC, September 25, 2012. Posted at Internet web site http://www.mcc.gov/documents/reports/report-100512-evaluation-hon-farmer-training-and-development.pdf.

17. Draft Final Report, Impact Evaluation of the Transportation Project in Honduras, NORC at the University of Chicago (Chicago, IL and Bethesda, MD), Millennium Challenge Corporation, April 4, 2012.

PRINCIPAL POSITIONS (generally of duration 18 months or more):Consultant in Statistics, Optimization and Information Technology, 1974-present (various organizations, including National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago (NORC), Academy for Educational Development (AED), Chemonics, Wells Fargo Bank, Bank of Botswana, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), contractors of United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), Inter-American Development Bank (IDB),African Development Bank (AfDB), Asian Development Bank (ADB))Software Engineer (Developer of Education Management Information System (EMIS)), Academy for Educational Development, Lusaka, Zambia, 2002-05Director, Management Systems Department, Bank of Botswana, 1999-2001Software Engineer (Developer of national civil service Personnel Management Information System (PMIS)), Academy for Educational Development, Lilongwe, Malawi, 1993-94President and Manager, Vista Research Corporation, Tucson and Sierra Vista, AZ, 1988-91Adjunct Professor of Statistics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, 1982-86 (taught the graduate course in sample

survey design and analysis and the core statistics course for students in business, public administration and management information systems)

Director of Research and Development and Principal Scientist of US Army Electronic Proving Ground's Electromagnetic Environmental Test Facility, Bell Technical Operations and Combustion Engineering, Tucson and Sierra Vista, AZ, 1982-86, 1986-88

Principal Engineer, SINGER Systems and Software Engineering, Tucson, AZ, 1986President and Manager, Vista Research Corporation, Alexandria, VA, and Tucson, AZ, 1977-81

http://www.mcc.gov/documents/reports/report-100512-evaluation-hon-farmer-training-and-development.pdf

http://www.mcc.gov/documents/reports/report-100512-evaluation-hon-farmer-training-and-development.pdf

http://www.mcc.gov/documents/reports/report-042011-design-hon-transportation-and-farmer-training.pdf

http://www.mcc.gov/documents/reports/report-042011-design-hon-transportation-and-farmer-training.pdf

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSizeEstimationAnalyticalSurveysGeneric.htm

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSurveyDesignForEvaluation.pdf

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/BoxJenkins.pdf

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/LagrangianApproachToCRM.htm

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/DestCapINTL.pdf

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/MusicTheorySummary.htm

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HowToPlayTheGuitarByEar6HourCourse.htm

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/Guitar.htm

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OptStratNoDefense.htm


60/111Vice President, JWK International Corporation, Annandale, VA, 1974-76Principal, Planning Research Corporation, McLean, VA, 1972-74Member of the Technical Staff, Lambda Corporation / General Research Corporation, McLean, VA, 1967-72Senior Operations Research Analyst, Deering Milliken Research Corporation, Spartanburg, SC, 1966-67Operations Research Analyst, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1964-66 Date of Birth: 23 March 1942Nationality: United States of America and CanadaResidence: 503 Chastine Drive, Spartanburg, SC 29301-5977 USA Summary of Professional Experience The following paragraphs describe Dr. Caldwell’s experience and approach in six areas, in greater detail: (1) statistical consulting; (2) management approach; (3) statistical applications in monitoring and evaluation; (4) operations research, systems analysis and statistics in industrial, commercial and military applications; (5) systems and software engineering; (6) teaching and technical training.

1. Statistical Consulting Consultant in statistics, specializing in the design of analytical surveys for impact evaluation of programs and projects in the US and foreign countries. Design techniques combine the methodologies of experimental design and sample survey design. Applications include experimental designs (randomized assignment of treatment), quasi-experimental designs (structure similar to experimental designs, but lacking randomized assignment of treatment) and observational data. Analytical survey designs use marginal stratification (implemented using variable probabilities of selection) to achieve adequate variation (balance, spread, orthogonality) in explanatory variables, and multidimensional matching to reduce bias and increase precision. Use statistical power analysis to determine sample size. National-level monitoring systems and impact evaluations implemented in the US and a number of developing countries (listed above). Sample survey designs include design-based approach (for descriptive surveys, used in program monitoring) and model-based approaches (for analytical surveys, used in program evaluation). Analysis is based on causal modeling using the Neyman-Rubin conceptual framework (counterfactuals model, potential outcomes model). Many applications involve pretest-posttest-comparison-group designs using the double-difference estimator of program impact. Analysis involves the use of complex estimators, such as a two-step estimator based on a first-step selection model and a second-step outcome model (e.g., a propensity score based estimator). Analysis involves heavy use of econometric modeling, as described in Econometric Analysis 7th ed. By William H. Greene (Prentice-Hall, 2012) and Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data 2nd ed. by Jeffrey M. Wooldridge (MIT Press, 2010, 2002). Numerical calculations are done using the Stata statistical programming package. Dr. Caldwell has been active in the design of analytical surveys since the mid-1970s. In the 1970s he designed a number of national-level analytical survey designs in the United States and directed the Economic and Social Impact Analysis / Women in Development project in the Philippines (providing training in impact evaluation of development projects). His approach to analytical survey design combines aspects of experimental design and sample survey design. For quasi-experimental designs involving matching of sample units of treatment and control samples, his approach overcomes the intrinsic shortcoming of the popular propensity-score-matching (PSM) procedure, that sample units may match well on the propensity score but not match well on variables (“covariates”) that have an important effect on outcomes of interest, resulting in low precision for impact estimates (the so-called “balancing” problem). His methodology for designing analytical surveys is presented in the article, Sample Survey Design for Evaluation (The Design of Analytical Surveys), posted at Internet web sitehttp://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSurveyDesignForEvaluation.pdf.

As part of his statistical consulting practice he has presented seminars on sample survey design and analysis, and he posts articles and software on statistics and related topics on his website, http://www.foundationwebsite.org(such as a program to estimate sample sizes for analytical surveys – see below for links to these, in the section on Teaching and Technical Training).

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/



61/111

2. Management Approach: Standards-Based Quality Management Management Consulting / Business Experience. Dr. Caldwell has substantial experience in management consulting to industry, including consulting, training, and system development in forecasting, quality control, product improvement, process control, and economic analysis of production alternatives. He founded and managed his own contract research firm (Vista Research Corporation, operated full-time for seven years), and set up a ladies' fashions importing/retailing firm (Sonora Marketing Corporation). In these efforts, Dr. Caldwell designed, implemented and managed all major functional components of the operations (marketing, production, and finance). Standards-Based Quality Management. For larger projects, Dr. Caldwell employs a “standards-based quality management” approach to project management. This approach makes full use of internationally recognized management and technical standards that are applicable to the effort. Examples of projects that he directed that employed this approach are the following:

Manager of Research and Development and Principal Scientist, US Army Electronic Proving Ground’s Electromagnetic Environmental Test Facility. In this role, all of the engineering and software development efforts directed by Dr. Caldwell were conducted in conformance with applicable US military standards (software development, systems engineering, test and evaluation).

Personnel Management Information System (PMIS) for the Government of Malawi. This project, which developed the personnel management information system for the Malawi civil service, was conducted in strict compliance with the leading software development standard at the time, the US Department of Defense’s Defense Systems Software Development, DOD-STD2167A, which was the predecessor to today’s international information-technology standard, ISO 12207, Software Life Cycle Processes.

Research in Artificial Intelligence for Noncommunications Electronic Warfare Systems. The purpose of this project was to develop an automated system for generating military scenarios for use in testing of military electronic-warfare systems. This project was developed in full compliance with the DOD-STD2167A Defense Systems Software Development Standard.

Director of Management Systems for the central bank of Botswana. As Director of Management System for the Bank of Botswana, Dr. Caldwell introduced a number of quality-management initiatives, including:

o Direction of the Bank’s Year-2000 program using guidelines published by the US General Accounting Office (“Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Business Continuity and Contingency Planning”) and the Bank for International Settlements. As a result of this program, the Bank did not experience a single “Year 2000 date change” problem.

o Use of the ISO 12207 Information Technology Standard to guide all major software development and acquisition efforts (such as the effort to acquire a national code-line clearing system based on magnetic-ink character recognition of checks, and the project to acquire a computer network management system for the Bank).

o Initiation of an effort to have the Bank’s Management Systems Department operate in compliance with the ISO 9000 Quality Management Standard.

o Assessment of the software development capability of the Bank’s staff and its software suppliers using the Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model (CMM) (predecessor of the ISO 15504 Standard, Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination (“SPICE”)).

o Direction of the project to develop the Bank’s Business Continuity Plan / Disaster Recovery Plan, using the Business Continuity Planning Guidelines issued by the Texas Department of Information Resources.

o Direction of the project to develop an information technology security plan, using the US General Accounting Office’s Information Security Risk Assessment guidelines.

In addition to providing assurance that work conducted in compliance with international professional standards will be of high quality, one of the other distinct benefits of using standards-based quality management is that staff members benefit greatly from being provided the opportunity and experience of working in compliance with quality management and technical standards.


62/1113. Statistical Applications in Program Monitoring and Evaluation

Dr. Caldwell developed the design for many national sample surveys and statistical reporting systems. He specializes in the development of analytical survey designs to collect data for model development, and developed new techniques for handling nonresponse in longitudinal surveys. An article describing Dr. Caldwell’s approach to the design of analytical surveys (e.g., for impact evaluation of economic and social development programs) is posted athttp://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSurveyDesignForEvaluation.htm , and a computer program for determining sample sizes for complex surveys is posted at http://www.foundationwebsite.org/JGCSampleSizeProgram.mdb (a Microsoft Access program). Program monitoring surveys and reporting systems include:

Zambia Education Management Information System (EMIS)· Ghana Trade and Investment Program Survey· Malawi Annual Primary School Enrollment Survey· Malawi Civil Service Personnel Management Information System (PMIS)· National Center for Health Services Research Hospital Cost Data Study· Professional Standards Review Organization Data Base Development Study· Study of Impact of National Health Insurance on Bureau of Community Health Service Users· 1976 Survey of Institutionalized Persons· Sampling Manual for Utilization Review of Medicaid· Sampling Manual for Social Services (Title XX) Reporting Requirements· Sampling Manual for Office of Child Support Enforcement Reporting Requirements· Dept. of Housing and Urban Development Housing Market Practices Survey· Research Design for the Urban Arterials Section of the Highway Capacity Manual· Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Survey

Evaluation Research / Impact Evaluation. Dr. Caldwell developed analytical sample survey designs for impact evaluations in the US, Jamaica, Honduras, Ghana, Burkina Faso, Namibia, Benin, Malawi, Zambia, and Côte d’Ivoire:

Impact Evaluation of the Programme of Advancement through Health and Education (PATH), Jamaica (a conditional cash transfer program)

Evaluation of Performance and Impact of Rehabilitation and Intensification of Olive Plantations in Rain-fed Zones, Morocco (Millennium Challenge Corporation)

Agricultural Data Collection in the Sourou Valley and Comoé Valley, Burkina Faso (Millennium Challenge Corporation)

Community-Based Rangeland and Livestock Management Household Income and Expenditure Surveys, Namibia (Millennium Challenge Corporation)

Conservancy Support and Indigenous Natural Products Household and Organisational Surveys, Namibia (Millennium Challenge Corporation)

Impact Evaluation of Water Supply Activity, Ghana (Millennium Challenge Corporation) Monitoring and Evaluation of the Competitive African Cashew Value Chains for Pro-Poor Growth Program

in Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Mozambique (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zusammenarbeit (GTZ))

Monitoring and Evaluation of the Competitive Action Cotton for Pro-Poor Growth Program in Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Zambia, Ghana and Malawi (Deutsche Investions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft (DEG))

Impact of Feeder Roads Activity, Ghana (Millennium Challenge Corporation) Farmer Training and Development Activity, Honduras (Millennium Challenge Corporation) Transportation Project, Honduras (Millennium Challenge Corporation)

and directed or supervised the following impact evaluation studies:

Economic and Social Impact Evaluation / Women in Development in the Philippines· Manager of Evaluation for Local Development II - Provincial Project in Egypt· Measuring the Effectiveness of Social Services in West Virginia· Day Care Cost-Benefit Study· Vocational Rehabilitation Evaluation Standards Study· Cost-Benefit Analysis of National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Treatment Centers

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/JGCSampleSizeProgram.mdb

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSurveyDesignForEvaluation.htm


63/111· Medicaid Standards Impact Assessment

Public Finance. In addition to his work in tax policy analysis and cost-benefit analysis, Dr. Caldwell directed studies to develop alternative allocation / matching formulas for major state/federal programs:

· Vocational Rehabilitation State Allocation Formula· Medicaid and AFDC Matching Percentage Formula

Dr. Caldwell is author of the book, The Value-Added Tax: A New Tax System for the United States (1987, 2000). An online copy of this book is posted at Internet web site http://www.foundationwebsite.org/VAT.pdf . This work not only describes a new tax system for the United States, but also presents a new methodology (based on the principles of systems engineering, and called “Tax Engineering”) for designing tax systems.

4. Operations Research, Systems Analysis and Statistics in Industrial, Commercial and Military Applications. Dr. Caldwell applied a wide variety of operations research and statistical techniques to solve practical problems in industrial, commercial and applications. Applications include the use of simulation and modeling, optimization and statistical methods to solve problems in process control, forecasting, economic analysis and optimal allocation of resources in industrial, commercial and military applications (textile and pharmaceutical manufacturing, banking, ballistic missile defense, naval ocean surveillance, test and evaluation of military electronic systems and equipment (communications and noncommunications)). These applications often involved the use of state-of-the-art technical methodologies such as (1) application of the Box-Jenkins time-series modeling method for demand forecasting (several years prior to publication of the Box-Jenkins book, Time Series Analysis, Forecasting and Control); (2) application of the Generalized Lagrange Multiplier optimization methodology and game theory for solving complex resource allocation problems in military applications and banking (variable-rate loan pricing strategies); (3) application of the just-introduced ArcView 3.0 geographic information system to identify good locations for automated teller machines (ATMs); and (4) application of artificial intelligence and expert systems methodology to develop automated scenario generation models for use in testing of noncommunication electronic warfare systems. Much of Dr. Caldwell’s work involved application of modern methodology to solve difficult problems in resource-constrained optimization, such as applications involving nonlinear, nonconvex and noncontinuous objective functions (in which cases standard techniques such as linear programming are not useful). In some instances, no satisfactory existing solution methodology existed, and new theory was developed. For example, in his work in ballistic missile defense, he developed a computationally feasible method for determining approximate solutions to John Nash’s bargaining solution to a general-sum game (Nash’s theory presented only an existence proof, not a constructive proof, of the bargaining solution). This work involved basic research in game theory. A reprint of the original report produced by this effort is posted at Internet website http://www.foundationwebsite.org/Conflict.htm.

5. Systems and Software Engineering Dr. Caldwell’s work in software engineering includes development of national management information systems, director of information technology for a central bank, and development of specialized computer software programs and packages. Large systems were developed in accordance with applicable software development standards. Level of Operation. In his information-technology (IT) work, Dr. Caldwell has operated at all organizational and technological levels, from administration, supervision and project direction through system design and implementation. As Director of Management Systems (chief information officer) at the Bank of Botswana, he directed a staff of 16 IT professionals and many projects, including the Year 2000 project, the project to set up a bank disaster recovery / avoidance system, the project to acquire a computer network management system for the Bank, and the project to acquire a magnetic-ink character-recognition (MICR) code-line clearing system for the country’s bank checks. As Manager of Research and Development and Principal Scientist at the US Army Electronic Proving Ground’s Electromagnetic Environmental Test Facility he directed a staff of 16 scientists and engineers in test and evaluation of military communications-electronics systems, and conducted all work in accordance with US Department of Defense military standards. As manager of Vista Research Corporation he was engaged in all aspects of computer systems development (systems and software engineering), from requirements specification and top-level design through coding and testing. He conducted all aspects of development of the Personnel Management Information

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/Conflict.htm

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/VAT.pdf


64/111System (PMIS) for the Government of Malawi and the Education Management Information System (EMIS) for the Government of Zambia. Management Approach. For larger projects or operations, he is a strong proponent of “standards-based quality management,” which makes heavy use of international standards (ISO 9000 Quality Management, ISO 12207 Information Technology Standard and its predecessors (the US Department of Defense's Software Development Standards (DOD-STD-2167A and MIL-STD-498)), the Carnegie-Mellon University Software Engineering Institute Capability Maturity Model (CMU SEI CMM), and ISO/IEC 15504 (Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, or “SPICE”). Design Approach. He has directed numerous software engineering projects, applying the modern principles of systems and software engineering. This approach includes user needs analysis, requirements specification and analysis, technology review, synthesis of system alternatives, cost-effectiveness analysis of alternatives and selection of a preferred alternative, detailed design, implementation and test. For the software subsystem he utilizes top-down, structured design combined with rapid prototyping (iterative development). Here follows a summary of software development projects, ranging from national-level management information systems, general-purpose software programs and packages, and special applications.

National Management Information Systems· Civil service Personnel Management Information System (PMIS) for Malawi· Education Management Information System (EMIS) for Zambia

General-Purpose Software Programs and Packages

· Computer program for estimating sample sizes for complex surveys· TIMES, the first commercially available general purpose Box-Jenkins time-series-analysis computer

program· The DESTINY system for making population projections and synthetic estimates of quantities

related to population· The MICROSIM prototype microsimulation forecasting model for estimating caseloads and budgets

in humyn-service applications· SCENARIST prototype automated scenario generating system (artificial intelligence, expert

systems, GRASS geographic information system) Special Applications

· Computer programs for implementing statistical matching and marginal stratification using variable probabilities of selection

· Variable-rate bank loan pricing model (based on Generalized Lagrange Multipliers (GLM))· ATM Placement Model (SAS, ArcView GIS)· Vocational Rehabilitation State Allocation Model· Correlation / Tracking Model for Naval Ocean Surveillance System· Terminal Missile Defense with Imperfect Inteceptors (GLM)· Subtractive Overlapping Island Defense Model (GLM)· Program for obtaining approximate solutions to John Nash’s Bargaining Solution for a General Sum

Game (GLM)· HARDSITE Defense Model (GLM)· Naval Combat Damage Model (GLM)· Multiple Resource-Constrained Game Model (GLM)

Details on System Development and Programming Experience Technology: Development Environments, Operating Systems, Programming Languages and Packages. Dr. Caldwell has extensive hands-on system development experience. His computer experience includes mainframe, mini- and microcomputer applications. He has much experience in applications programming in Fortran, C, Visual C, Visual Basic, dBASE/FoxPro, Microsoft Access and SQL on mainframe computers, minicomputers and microcomputers


65/111under a variety of operating systems (MS-DOS, Microsoft Windows, UNIX, IBM, CDC, UNIVAC, Sun Microsystems Solaris and others). Most of his microcomputer development work used the Microsoft Visual Studio Integrated Development Environment (IDE) / .NET Framework. He is experienced in application of database systems (SQL-based relational database systems such as Microsoft Access, Oracle and Informix and Xbase systems such as dBASE and FoxPro), and of statistical program packages (e.g., Stata, SAS and SPSS). He has some experience on Unix operating systems (e.g., Sun Microsystems Solaris) and some familiarity with Unix-related open-source systems (Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP (“LAMP”)). He is familiar with a variety of commercial microcomputer software applications (e.g., word processing, electronic spreadsheet, data base, desktop publishing, web page development, accounting), including the Microsoft Office suite of products (Word, Access, Excel, PowerPoint, FrontPage (HTML web page development system, replaced in 2006 by Microsoft Expression Web and Sharepoint Designer) in both standalone and network environments. Application Areas (in Software Engineering) Computer Models for Forecasting and Demographic Analysis. Dr. Caldwell developed TIMES, the first commercially-available general-purpose Box-Jenkins computer-forecasting package and the DESTINY microcomputer software system for making demographic projections (cohort-component, synthetic estimation) For the US Department of Health and Humyn Services (HHS), he directed the project to develop a prototype microsimulation forecasting model and a statistical reporting system to provide the data required by the model. The model -- called MICROSIM -- was developed to forecast caseloads and expenditures for HHS programs under various policy assumptions. Artificial Intelligence / Expert Systems / Geographic Information Systems. For the US Army Communications-Electronics Command, he directed a project to develop a prototype expert system, named SCENARIST, to position military units and equipment, taking into account the location of friendly and opposing forces, mission, tactical combat rules, and digital terrain data. The system (which included 50,000 lines of C code) incorporated the NASA-developed C-Language Integrated Production System (CLIPS) expert system and used digital mapping data extracted from the US Army's Geographic Resources and Services System (GRASS) geographic information system (GIS). The system was developed for MS-DOS-based 80x86 microcomputers, and included a comprehensive graphical user interface (mouse, windows, and menus). Banking / Finance. He developed a geographic information system application (ArcView 3.0 GIS, SAS) to identify good locations for bank automated teller machines (ATMs). He developed a simulation / optimization system, based on Generalized Lagrange Multipliers, to determine optimal loan pricing strategies (Windows NT, Microsoft Visual Basic 5.0). Program Evaluation; Civil Service and Education Management Information Systems. Dr. Caldwell personally conducted all of the software and database design and most of the programming for the statistical and information systems work in the Egypt, Malawi (civil service Personnel Management Information System) and Zambia (Education Management Information System) applications mentioned above.

6. Teaching and Technical Training Dr. Caldwell served as adjunct professor of statistics at the University of Arizona, where he taught the graduate course in sample survey design and analysis and the basic statistics course for all students of business, management, management information systems, and public administration (500 students per semester). As director of the Economic and Social Impact Analysis / Women in Development project in the Philippines, Dr. Caldwell trained university professors in the theory and methodology of program impact evaluation. As part the project to develop the Personnel Management Information system for the civil service of Malawi, he trained IT professionals (in the Office of the President) in the methodology for development and maintenance of a national-level management information system. In Zambia, he trained staff of the Ministry of Education in the technology of development and maintenance of the national Education Management Information System. As Director of Management Systems for the Bank of Botswana (Botswana’s central bank), he was responsible for professional development and training of the Bank’s information-technology staff.


66/111Dr. Caldwell developed the technical seminar, Sample Survey Design and Analysis. This popular three-day course was given on an advertised basis and also on an in-house basis at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Course notes for this course are posted at Internet websites http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSurvey3DayCourseDayOne.pdf , http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSurvey3DayCourseDayTwo.pdf andhttp://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSurvey3DayCourseDayThree.pdf . Course notes for a related course, Statistical Design and Analysis in Evaluation, are posted at http://www.foundationwebsite.org/StatisticalDesignAndAnalysisInEvaluation2DayCourse.pdf . Computer Software in Statistics and Demography. Computer Software for Time Series Analysis, Forecasting and Control. Dr. Caldwell developed the first commercially-available general-purpose Box-Jenkins computer-forecasting package (TIMES, described athttp://www.foundationwebsite.org/BoxJenkins.pdf , http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TIMESVol1TechnicalBackground.pdf ).A computer program for developing the most common Box-Jenkins models is posted at http://www.foundationwebsire.org/BoxJenkinsForecastingProgram.exe. Computer Software for Demographic Analysis and Synthetic Estimation. Dr. Caldwell developed the DESTINY microcomputer software for making demographic projections (cohort-component, synthetic estimation) (described athttp://www.foundationwebsite.org/DestCapINTL.pdf; similar to USAID’s RAPID population-projection program, but extended to handle multiple regions and ethnic groups). The DESTINY system uses the cohort-component method of population projection to produce estimates of population by age, sex, race and region, and applies the method of synthetic estimation to determine forecasts of variables related to population.

Statistical Methodology for Evaluation. An article describing Dr. Caldwell’s approach to the design of analytical surveys (e.g., for impact evaluation of economic and social development programs) is posted athttp://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSurveyDesignForEvaluation.pdf, and a computer program for determining sample sizes for complex surveys is posted at http://www.foundationwebsite.org/JGCSampleSizeProgram.mdb (a Microsoft Access program). An illustrative example of use of this program is presented in the article Determination of Sample Size for Analytical Surveys, Using a Pretest-Posttest-Comparison-Group Design, posted athttp://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSizeEstimationAnalyticalSurveysGeneric.htm. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS (in development applications): June 2011 – Present. Economist and Statistical Analyst, Impact Evaluation of the Programme of Advancement through Health and Education (PATH), Jamaica. Government of Jamaica / Sanigest, Costa Rica. Responsible for evaluation and sample survey design used to collect household data to evaluate Jamaica’s PATH conditional cash transfer (CCT) program. Adopted the Neyman-Rubin (“potential outcomes,” “counterfactuals”) conceptual framework for the evaluation design, and constructed a sample survey design to support this approach. The sample design was an “analytical” sample design intended to provide data useful for estimating program impact and the relationship of impact to explanatory variables. The sample design was a “matched pairs” design that included matching of eligible households on a number of socio-economic characteristics, prior to selection of probability samples of treated and untreated households. Statistical power analysis was used to determine a sample size sufficient to provide a high level of power for detecting impacts of specified magnitude (“minimum detectable effects”). The precision of impact estimates and the power of statistical tests about those impacts were increased by the use of marginal stratification to assure adequate variability on explanatory variables related to outcomes of interest. The marginal stratification was implemented by setting variable probabilities of selection for each household of the population. September 2010 – Present. Evaluation Expert and Statistician to the project, “Evaluation des performances et de l’impact de l’activité de rehabilitation et d’intensification des plantations d’oliviers au niveau des zones pluviales,” Agence du Partenariat pour le Progrès, Millennium Challenge Account – Maroc, Project Arboriculture Fruitière, National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago (NORC). Responsible for sample survey design and selection of samples for an impact evaluation of an olive development project in Morocco.

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSizeEstimationAnalyticalSurveysGeneric.htm

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/JGCSampleSizeProgram.mdb


http://www.foundationwebsite.org/DestCapINTL.pdf

http://www.foundationwebsire.org/BoxJenkinsForecastingProgram.exe



http://www.foundationwebsite.org/BoxJenkins.pdf

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/StatisticalDesignAndAnalysisInEvaluation2DayCourse.pdf

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSurvey3DayCourseDayThree.pdf

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSurvey3DayCourseDayThree.pdf

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSurvey3DayCourseDayTwo.pdf

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSurvey3DayCourseDayTwo.pdf

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/SampleSurvey3DayCourseDayOne.pdf


67/111 August 2010 – Present. Evaluation Expert and Statistician to the project, “Agriculture Data Collection in the Sourou Valley and Comoé Basin.” Millennium Challenge Account – Burkina Faso (MCA-BF), National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago (NORC). Responsible for construction of sample survey design and selection of samples for an impact evaluation of two agricultural development projects in Burkina Faso. August 2010 – Present. Evaluation Expert and Statistician to the project, “Community-Based Rangeland and Livestock Management Household Income and Expenditure Surveys.” Millennium Challenge Account – Namibia (MCA-N), National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago (NORC). Responsible for construction of sample survey design and selection of samples for an impact evaluation of a rangeland management project in Namibia. August 2010 – Present. Evaluation Expert and Statistician to the project, “Conservancy Support and Indigenous Natural Products Household and Organisational Surveys.” Millennium Challenge Account – Namibia (MCA-N), National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago (NORC). Responsible for construction of sample survey design and selection of samples for an impact evaluation of an indigenous natural products project in Namibia. July 2010 – Present. Evaluation Expert and Statistician to the project, “Impact Evaluation of Water Supply Activity.” Millennium Development Authority—Ghana (MiDA), National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago (NORC). The Water Supply Activity project was undertaken by the Millennium Development Authority – Ghana (MiDA) as part of its Compact with the US Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to improve infrastructure in selected agricultural areas in Ghana. The goal of the water supply activity improvements is to improve the quantity and quality of water in MiDA program areas, and thereby improve the health and economic status of communities in those areas. Of particular interest are effects on household health outcomes, time savings, and income levels. The purpose of the evaluation project is to conduct a rigorous impact evaluation of the program to assess the extent to which it is achieving its goals. The evaluation design is a pretest-posttest-comparison-group design, and the basic measure of program impact will be a double-difference estimate based on this design. Dr. Caldwell constructed the evaluation and survey design for the evaluation project. November 2009 – Present. Evaluation Expert and Statistician to the project, “Monitoring and Evaluation of the Competitive African Cashew Value Chains for Pro-Poor Growth Program”, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago (NORC). Here follows a brief summary of the project, taken from the project grant proposal: “The project will contribute to sustainably reducing rural poverty in five African countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana and Mozambique). An estimated 2.5 million mainly smallholder farmers grow cashew in Africa. Annually production of almost 750,000MT they supply about 40% of the world’s cashew crop. But only about 12% of cashew nuts are processed into cashew kernels in Africa. The cashew project aims to improve the quality of raw cashew nut cultivation, increase farmer productivity, improve linkages between smallholder farmers and the marketplace, build African processing capacity and promote a sustainable global market for African cashews. The project’s goal is to help 150,000 smallholder cashew farming households in Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana and Mozambique increase their incomes by 50 percent by 2012.” The goal of the program is to increase income and employment for cashew farmers. The purpose of the evaluation project is to conduct an economic impact evaluation of the program to assess the extent to which it is achieving its goals. For the evaluation, surveys are to be conducted in all five countries of the program. Dr. Caldwell constructed the evaluation and sample survey designs for all program countries except Mozambique. The measures of program impact will be double-difference estimates based on pretest-posttest-comparison-group evaluation designs. Sample sizes were determined by statistical power analysis to assure high power for detecting impact effects of specified size. A two-stage sample design was employed, with selection of a first-stage sample of villages and a second-stage sample of farmers within sample villages. The sample design used matching to increase precision of estimates and power of tests of hypotheses. Marginal stratification, implemented through the use of variable probabilities of selection, was used to assure adequate variation in explanatory variables. March 2009 – Present. Evaluation Expert and Statistician to the project, “Monitoring and Evaluation of the Competitive African Cotton for Pro-Poor Growth Program”, Deutsche Investitions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft GmbH (DEG), NORC. The purpose of the project is to conduct an economic impact evaluation of the “Cotton Made


68/111in Africa” initiative. For the evaluation, surveys are being conducted in six countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Zambia, Ghana and Malaŵi. Under the program, cotton farmers are provided training and services so that their cotton may be certified as having been produced under the “Cotton Made in Africa” (CMiA) program. The goal of the program is to increase income and employment for cotton farmers. Dr. Caldwell constructed the evaluation and sample survey designs for all program countries. The measures of program impact will be double-difference estimates based on pretest-posttest-comparison-group evaluation designs. The sample designs for the cotton project were similar to those described above for the cashew program (statistical power analysis, matching, marginal stratification, variable probabilities of selection). February, 2009 – Present. Lead Statistician, Impact Evaluation of Feeder Roads Activity, Millennium Development Authority - Ghana (MiDA), NORC. The purpose of the project is to conduct an impact evaluation of the MiDA Feeder Roads Activity in eight of its 23 program districts. The evaluation will determine the impact of feeder roads improvements on input costs, product prices, and passenger fares and goods’ tariffs that are associated with reduced travel time and vehicle operating cost. The primary data for the impact evaluation will consist of three market surveys, similar in scope to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) survey, examining changes in price over time in localities different distances from the improved road segments. The sample design involved matching of treatment and control localities using a “nearest neighbor” technique with a data set enhanced with GIS methods. The impact of the roads improvements will be determined employing a double-difference estimator applied to changes in prices over the next two years. Dr. Caldwell was responsible for providing advice on the strengths and weaknesses of particular evaluation designs, devising sampling strategies and designs, estimating sample sizes, drawing the sample for data collection activities, preparing weights to apply to the price and fare observations, and assisting with analysis plans to ensure statistical robustness of results. May 2007 – Present. Evaluation Expert and Statistician, Millennium Challenge Account - Honduras Program Impact Evaluation, National Opinion Research Center (NORC), Honduras. Technical advisor to provide evaluation research design and analysis services in support of an economic impact evaluation of roads-improvement and farmer-development projects funded by the Millennium Challenge Corporation in Honduras. Dr. Caldwell developed the evaluation and sample survey designs for the two projects. For both projects, statistical power analysis was used to determine sample size. Using this approach, the sample size was determined so that the probability (power) of detecting an effect (impact) of a specified size was high. Both projects involved a “panel” sample design in which the survey was administered before and after the program intervention, i.e., the basic design was a “pretest-posttest” design. The conceptual framework for the impact analysis was the “Neyman-Rubin causal model”, or “potential outcomes model,” or “counterfactuals model.” For the farmer assistance project, eligible villages (“aldeas”) were classified into sets of “matched pairs,” and one member of each pair was randomly selected to receive program services. The matching was done on a number of variables believed to affect outcomes of interest, and available prior to the survey. The matching was done prior to randomized selection for treatment, to increase the precision of impact estimates and the power of tests of hypothesis about them. A probability sample of matched pairs was selected using the technique of “marginal stratification,” to ensure adequate variation (spread, balance) in the design variables. The randomized-assignment-to-treatment sample was supplemented by a sample selected for treatment in the usual fashion (by the program implementer). The data analysis included development of a “two-step” model, in which the first step was a binary “selection” (propensity-score) model and the second step was an “outcome” model that included the selection probability estimated in the first step. The principal impact estimate of interest was the Average Treatment Effect (ATE), or average effect of the program intervention on an eligible farmer. The ATE was a “regression adjusted” or “covariate adjusted” double-difference estimate. The survey design for the transportation project included selection of a probability sample of caserios (administrative units generally smaller than villages), where marginal stratification was once again used to assure adequate variation in variables believed to affect outcome. In particular, the selection probabilities were set to assure adequate variation in the estimated change in travel time to be caused by the program intervention (road improvements). The estimated change in travel time was calculated from a GIS road-network model that included all official roads in Honduras. The survey data were used to develop an estimate of the Partial Treatment Effect (PTE) (relationship of impact to travel-time variables) and, from the PTE, the Average Treatment Effect.


69/111 May – June 2008. Statistical Consultant, Analysis of Poverty and Social Impact of Education Sector Reforms in Mozambique, World Bank / KPMG/ Manitou Incorporated. Developed the data-entry program to be used for a national sample survey of households, to assess the economic and social impact of education sector reforms. The US Bureau of the Census CSPro software system was used for this application. The questionnaire and corresponding data-entry forms were in Portuguese. Dec 2007 – Feb 2008. Systems Integration Consultant, Governance and Economic Management Assistance Program (GEMAP), USAID / Segura Consulting, Liberia. Technical advisor to a project funded by the US Agency for International Development to develop a computer system to automate tax payments. The goal of the project is to establish a “One-Stop Shop” at the National Port, where importers can settle their tax obligations quickly. Developed system requirements specifications and procurement documents. The system includes radio communication links among the National Port, the Ministry of Finance, and the Central Bank. June 2007. Consultant in Information Technology and Statistics, Guinea Baseline Survey, Indefinite Quantity Contract (IQC) for Democracy and Governance Analytical, Support and Implementation Services, US Agency for International Development / Management Systems International, Guinea. Technical advisor to develop a design for a database to store data required in support of USAID’s Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) reporting and management needs, and for a statistical sample survey to collect data to be stored in the database. Advised on the database design (e.g., static Word files, static HTML files, standalone Microsoft Access database, networked database, web-based dynamic system (e.g., MS ASP.net, Adobe ColdFusion, Sun Java Server Pages, Linux operating system / Apache web server , MySQL database, PHP web page (LAMP)), selection of sample survey data-entry software (e.g., Epi Info, CSPro, Viking, SPSS), and sample survey design (a two-stage sample survey design using Census enumeration districts as primary sampling units (PSUs) was recommended, to provide data in support of a pretest-posttest comparison-group quasi-experimental design). Statistical power analysis was used to determine the survey sample sizes (number of sample PSUs, number of sample households within PSUs). Mar – Sept 2006. Information Technology Advisor in Personnel Management Information Systems, United Nations Development Program, East Timor and Portugal. Technical advisor to advise the Government of Timor-Leste on the selection of a software developer to develop a civil-service Personnel Management Information System (PMIS). The software developer was selected and the system was successfully implemented. (In early 2012 this system was selected by UNDP as third best of all of UNDP’s projects.) Feb 2002 – April 2005. Technical Advisor in Educational Management Information Systems, Academy for Educational Development, Zambia. Technical advisor to a project funded by the US Agency for International Development, to develop an Educational Management Information System (EMIS) for the Zambia Ministry of Education. The purpose of the EMIS is to collect, store, and retrieve data (produce reports) from the Annual School Census, in support of program planning and analysis by the Ministry and donor agencies. Applications were developed using the Microsoft Access database development system, the Academy for Educational Development’s EdAssist system, and the ArcView geographic information system (GIS). The project included training of host-country counterpart staff in Microsoft Access database development, maintenance and use. Jan 1999 – Jan 2001, Director of Management Systems, Bank of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana. Responsible for management of all information technology operations for the Bank of Botswana, Botswana’s central (reserve) bank(IT vision, strategy, policy, procedures, operations, acquisition, training, staff development). The Bank’s computer system was comprised of over 300 networked microcomputers running under Windows NT/95/98/2000, Novell 4.1 and UNIX operating systems. Managed a group of 16 information technology specialists to operate and support the Bank’s computer hardware and software applications (network management; Microsoft Office Suite; Internet/intranet; banking operations; accounting; investment portfolio / foreign reserve management; financial data services; economic analysis; humyn-resources management; and asset management. Introduced modern management and software engineering practices based on standards-based quality management (ISO 9000 Quality Management standard, ISO 12207 Information Technology standard, Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute Capability Maturity Model (CMM), DOD-STD-498 Software Development and Documentation). Responsible for system development (design, implementation), procurement, training, operations and maintenance (annual budget approximately USD3 million, exclusive of staff salaries, training, and noncomputer


70/111facilities and equipment). Responsible for setting Bank’s IT vision, strategy, policy, procedures, security. Supervised approximately 30 IT projects. Directed the Bank’s Year-2000 date-change (“Y2K”) program, in accordance with international standards (Bank for International Settlements and US government) (no date-change problems encountered after the century date change). Directed preparation of the Bank’s first disaster-recovery plan. Supervised the development of the Bank’s first web page, and acquisition of the country’s first “code-line clearing” system (for magnetic-ink character recognition (MICR) of bank checks). Participated in all meetings of the Bank’s Executive Committee and Board of Directors; reported to the Governor and Deputy Governor. Apr – Oct 1998. Information Technology Specialist, Educational Management Information System Design for Secondary Education Sector Development Project, Asian Development Bank / Academy for Educational Development, Bangladesh. Developed top-level requirements for the Educational Management Information System (EMIS) to be developed under a multi-year development program funded by the Asian Development Bank. Assignment included review of current systems, identification of user information needs, and identification and comparative evaluation of alternative systems. Sep 1997 – Mar 1998. Consultant in Risk Management, Strategic Sourcing Inc., / Canada Trust Bank (now Toronto Dominion Bank), Bank Risk Management, Canada. Consultant in risk management to Canada Trust Bank. Responsible for the development of analytical models for risk management of the Bank's loan products. Developed a model for risk-based variable-rate pricing of loans, using the techniques of Generalized Lagrange Multipliers (GLM) and mathematical simulation. The methodology determines pricing strategies that are optimal with respect to the allocation of capital to the Bank's investment opportunities, taking customer, market, and policy factors into account. The computer simulation approach is used as an efficient framework for exploring alternative pricing strategies; the GLM method is used to determine pricing strategies that maximize stockholder value added (profitability) subject to constraints (on capital reserve requirements, probability of exceeding loss provisions, and other factors). The variable-rate pricing model was implemented as an easy-to-use Visual Basic microcomputer program (Windows NT, UNIX, SAS, VB5). May 1996 – Jul 1997. Statistical Consultant to Strategic Sourcing Inc. / First Union National Bank (later Wachovia, now Wells Fargo), Statistical and Optimization Computer Models in Banking, USA. Consultant to First Union National Bank (US sixth largest bank), conducting statistical analysis to develop customer segmentation models in support of bankcard marketing initiatives. Developed optimization model for identifying profitable locations for automatic teller machines (ATMs). Used SAS statistical analysis software and ArcView 3.0 geographic information system (spatial analyst) to develop logistic regression and discriminant analysis models to identify likely customers for PC banking. Models used a wide range of economic and demographic data at the block group and ZIP-code levels (population, income, employment, sales, shopping centers, crime statistics, traffic counts, ATM locations and characteristics). Windows 95 and UNIX (Sun Solaris SPARCcenter). Nov 1995 – May 1996. Survey Statistician, Income and Employment Survey for Ghana Trade and Investment Program, Sigma One Corporation / USAID, Ghana. As part of the US Agency for International Development's Trade and Investment Program in Ghana, Dr. Caldwell designed and analyzed the survey to estimate the employment and income associated with every $1,000 of exports in non-traditional areas. The survey was designed to produce national estimates and estimates for selected product sectors (pineapples, pineapple juice, tuna loins / canned tuna, and cashew nuts). The sampling plan involved a probability sample of 300 exporting firms selected with probabilities proportional to a measure of size (export value) without replacement. Developed the statistical software (using dBASE) to determine the sample design, select a probability sample, and compute all survey estimates and standard errors. May – Jun 1995. Sample Survey Design and Sampling Statistician, Academy for Educational Development / USAID, Malawi. For the Malawi Ministry of Education, Dr. Caldwell developed the sample design for the Annual Primary School Survey. Previously, the annual school survey was a census of all 3,400 schools and three million students; the amount of time and effort required to collect and process all of these data was placing a serious burden on the Planning Unit resources. The sampling plan involves a probability sample of 500 schools selected with probabilities proportional to a measure of size (the previous year's enrollment) using the Rao-Hartley-Cochran method. With the probability sampling approach, all of the information required by the Planning Unit will be available for a fraction of the effort required by the previous approach. Developed the statistical software (using dBASE) to determine the sample design, select a probability sample, and compute all survey estimates and standard errors.


71/111 Jun 1993 – Dec 1994. Personnel Management Information System Developer, Civil Servant Personnel Management Information System, Academy for Educational Development / USAID, Malawi. For the Malawi Department of Humyn Resources Management and Development, Dr. Caldwell designed and implemented the Malawi Civil Service Personnel Management Information System (PMIS). The system was developed using the dBASE database management information system, for use on microcomputers (standalone or networked) using the MS-DOS operating system. The system includes a variety of demographic and employment-related data for Malawian civil servants, and offers the users (personnel officers) a wide range of easy-to-use data entry and query/report capabilities. Experienced database users may generate queries and reports using SQL (Structured Query Language) commands or any of dBASE's automated query and report-generation features, but the system is designed with a powerful graphical user interface (GUI) so that a nontechnical user may generate all standard queries and reports without the need for any programming or entering of complicated commands, simply by making selections from a suite of menus. Data entry is facilitated by a series of easy-to-use data entry screens, with ample on-line help and validation of all entered data. Employee records may be displayed on the screen or printed. The system development effort was conducted in full compliance with the DOD-STD-2167A software development standard (predecessor of today’s ISO 12207 Information Technology Standard), and included the production of almost 1,000 pages of detailed system documentation, including a System Design Document, Software Requirements Specification, Software Design Document, Software Programmer's Manual, Software Product Specification, andSoftware User's Manual. The project included on-the-job training of members of the Department's Management Information Systems Unit (systems analysts, programmers) in systems engineering (requirements analysis, technology assessment, synthesis of alternatives, specification of evaluation criteria, selection of a preferred alternative, top-level design, detailed design (optimization), implementation, and test), the modern software engineering discipline (structured, top-down design), management information system design, dBASE, software development project management, and basic microcomputer upgrading and repair; and classroom instruction for system users (personnel officers) in use of the system for data entry and retrieval (queries and report generation). Mar 1991 – Oct 1992. Manager of Monitoring and Evaluation, Local Development II - Provincial (LDII-P) Project, Chemonics International / USAID, Egypt. Served as manager of Monitoring and Evaluation for the USAID-funded Local Development II - Provincial (LDII-P) project, which provided technical assistance in the development and maintenance of USAID-funded infrastructure projects in Egypt (potable water, waste water, roads, buildings, rolling stock, environment, and information systems). The LDII-P project was the largest USAID local development project in the world, having funded the development of over 16,000 local-level projects. In addition to infrastructure development, a major goal of the project was to promote government decentralization and increase the capacity of local governments to plan, finance, implement, and maintain local projects. Principal activities included: (1) the design and implementation of a nationwide project monitoring survey to assess the implementation, operating, and service status of projects; (2) the development of an indicators system to assist local officials in the assessment of need for public services, the availability of services, and the identification and prioritization of local development projects; (3) the design and implementation of a governorate project monitoring system to assist governorate detection and follow-up of implementation and operational problems. On this project, Dr. Caldwell made heavy use of automated management information system tools (dBASE, SPSS) to store, process, and retrieve data on project status and needs assessment (including continuous monitoring of project status indicators), and applied the techniques of sample survey (questionnaire development, stratified random sampling) and rapid appraisal techniques (focus group interviews) to assist end-of-project evaluation, as well as continuous monitoring of indicators. Dr. Caldwell lectured on the use of geographic information systems (GISs) in development planning, and supervised training of development planners in use of the PC-ARC/INFO GIS. Oct 1979 – Jan 1982. Project Director / Chief of Party, Economic and Social Impact Analysis / Women in Development (ESIA/WID) Project, Vista Research Corporation / USAID / NEDA, Philippines. The purpose of this project, sponsored jointly by the Philippines National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and the US Agency for International Development, was to help improve the capability of the Government of the Philippines to monitor and measure economic progress, social change, and the impact of development projects, including the effects on women in their dual role as agents and beneficiaries of development. The contract provided technical services to assist the Philippines Institute of Development Studies (PIDS) to develop and validate analytical frameworks and indicators for analyzing and measuring progress and the impact of development projects on selected areas of concern;


72/111to design and field test efficient means for measuring and monitoring project progress and impact indicators; and to determine a better understanding of the mechanisms by which development projects achieve their goals. The development projects included a wide variety of substantive fields -- health, nutrition, and family planning; education; integrated agricultural production and marketing, aquaculture production, and agro-reforestation; integrated area development; feeder roads; ports; local water systems; electrification; small-scale industries, and tourism. The ESIA/WID project identified and evaluated the use of a variety of statistical design and analysis techniques to assist project impact assessment: quasi-experimental designs, sample survey, analysis of variance, multiple regression analysis, questionnaire design, indicator development. For the Philippines Ministry of Health, Dr. Caldwell developed alternative management information system (MIS) designs to support both agency operations and program monitoring. Dr. Caldwell served as chief of party and directed a team of eleven Ph.D. consultants on the ESIA/WID project. Oct 1975 – Sep 1976. Project Director /Supervisor, Economic Policy Analysis for the Government of Haiti, JWK Intl Corp / USAID, Haiti. Under a contract funded by the US Agency for International Development, this study determined agricultural and tax policy changes that the government of Haiti could employ to increase foreign exchange and increase the income of the small farmer. The study addressed five commodities -- coffee, cotton, sisal, mangoes, and meat (major emphasis on coffee). The project included the use of rapid-assessment sample surveys to collect up-to-date data on commodity prices. A major goal of the project was the transfer of policy analysis capabilities to members of the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture. Dr. Caldwell supervised a team of four Ph.D. consultants (economists) on this project, and conducted the statistical analysis of survey data (surveys of current prices). jgcdev20121116.doc


73/111

***Answers to:***


74/111

A2: Perm – Do Both/Plan then CP

1. The perm makes no sense – there’s no literature advocate for doing the plan and nuking the world at the same time

2. No Solvency – their authors don’t assume a nuclear war taking place while their plan is being enacted.

3. Turn – even if the aff’s infrastructure survives, it’ll just pave the way back to an industrial civilization

4. No unique advantage to the perm – 1NC Ob. 2 G sub-point indicates members of the new global society will set up an environmentally conscientious society.

5. No Solvency – society would be divided into two separate societies: the hunter-gathers and the industrialized population. No governmental agency would be around to enforce the plan

6. If the plan requires substantial delay you’re just risking more biosphere destruction which means they still link to our impacts

7. If the plan happens instantaneously, all progress will halt or be reversed as the world gets nuked. This means no solvency…again.


75/111

A2: Perm – Do the CP

1. You may as well call the affirmative team Chris Brown because this perm is as abusive as it gets – they completely sever out of their plan

2. And severance is bad because –

A. Forces us to debate ourselves – only other way than theory is to read solvency deficits cards against the perm or in other words our advocacy

B. Moving Target bad- They avoid clash and change the debate by severing out of DA links and the CP’s net benefits- huge time and strat skew, we base our 1NC strat off of the plan text.

C. This allows the affirmative to just advocate the CP in the 2AC, they have to win CP’s are bad to win the perm

D. Kills education- they can avoid any clash in policy comparison

E. The perm isn’t an advocacy, if you sever its no longer a test of competitiveness

F. If aff can advocate the perm, they no longer have to be topical.

G. Voter for Fairness


76/111

A2: Perm – Do CP then Plan

1. The perm makes no sense – there’s no literature advocate for doing after a nuclear war. The perm has no net benefit.

2. No solvency – all their authors assume the plan gets implemented in the SQ, so it won’t work after a nuclear war.

3. Turn – if the Aff forces the plan into action, it requires of a new government, paving the road back (no pun intended) to industrialization and linking to our impacts.

4. No unique advantage – 1NC Ob. 2 G sub-point indicates that members of a new global society will set up an environmentally conscientious society anyway.

5. No solvency – society would be divided into 2 separate societies, the hunter-gathers and industrialized population. There’s no proof that governmental agencies would be in place Post-CP.

6. No benefit to the perm – the CP makes society move away from mechanization and industrialization, solving everything and only what the aff does.

7. Turn – the perm requires the establishment of a government identical to the SQ. Extend card 3 from the 1NC – it says the new government would be better than democracy thus the perm destroys freedom.

8. Perm severs the actor – the 1AC actor was the USFG but Post-CP the actor would have to be the governing body of the new order (Solaria).

9. Reject severance – it justifies advocacy shifts in original plan mandates. The aff could perm out of any DA we could run, which they just did. That kills all CP and DA ground.

10. Don’t let them argue don’t sever out of the original actor - that means they’d have to maintain the USFG, meaning that the 1NC functions as a DA to the perm because they maintain the structures that have caused the crisis in the first place.


77/111

A2: International Fiat Bad

International Fiat is good:

Offense

1. Resolution basis- You have to defend that the USFG should act

2. Most real world- Congress doesn’t debate an action if Britain will do it for them

3. Come out from under that rock- The US isn’t the only country that does things, this is key to real world education.

a.) real world is key to education because it’s the only thing that helps debaters beyond the context of debate and…

b.) education outweighs fairness because the rules were created to maximize education, if we find a way that increases education the rules can be changed

4. Their ignorance justifies imperialism and racism- The US isn’t the only actor in the world, it’s not our job to fix everything.

Defense

1. Not outside judges jurisdiction- The theory of opportunity cost, the US can’t do it if another country already did or will

2. Not the same as object fiat- we don’t fiat the country causing your harms

3. Its reciprocal- the aff defends one actor, so do we

4. Lit checks abuse- No one writes that the Vatican should instigate a nuclear war

5. Perm checks abuse- If the policy isn’t competitive, the perm takes away all abuse, otherwise its fair anyway.

6. Not a voter- Its an argument to reject the CP


78/111

A2: Neg Fiat Bad

Neg Fiat is good:

1. Debate has changed. As topics got bigger, affs defended plans instead of the whole resolution, reciprocally; It’s now only the negatives job to disprove the plan.

2. Its Reciprocal, the neg should get fiat too

3. Opportunity cost- Counterplan functions like a disad to the plan.

4. More real world - it trains us to find the best policy option

5. It’s predictable and widely accepted in debate.

6. Turn- Increases aff ground they can read disads to the CP

7. You can’t make the negative defend a horribly flawed status quo if a case might just be true.

8. Aff gets to choose the topic of debate, has unlimited prep time, higher win percentage and first and last speech, the neg needs counterplans

9. Lit checks fiat abuse – our solvency advocate covers everything stated in our CP text and more; this isn’t some arbitrary plan with an arbitrary actor

10. Not a voter- It’s an argument to reject the CP


79/111

A2: Caldwell Crazy

1. Our opponents are reverting to ad hominem attacks – just because our other has new bold ideas doesn’t mean he’s crazy; the aff resorts to attacking our author instead of his warrants. Discard this arg – even a crazy person can make good args.

2. Caldwell is sane; he’s worked at the DoD, knows how nuclear war is waged, and his logic actually works. The problem is people just don’t want to discuss real solutions to an imminent problem.Caldwell 10Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2010[Joseph George; “Handbook of Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/HandbookOfPM.htm; March 6th] VL

On Internet blogs, critics assert that my views on nuclear warfare and planetary management are “absurd” or “outrageous.” Although the prospect of humynkind’s using its technology to destroy itself may reasonably be viewed as outrageous, my views on these subjects are not absurd, or even far-fetched. They are, in fact, conventional and traditional. In my professional career I worked for a number of years in the field of global nuclear warfare, consulting to the US Department of Defense. (Prior to interviewing for my first job after college, I was told to

read Herman Kahn’s On Thermonuclear War as background material.) My subsequent work in global nuclear war and ballistic missile defense was conducted at the highest levels of national security clearance (e.g., Top

Secret, SCI, SI/TK, Q). I know what I am talking about. I know how global nuclear war is waged. I

worked for many years within the US defense establishment as a weapons systems analyst and

system developer in air, land, sea and space military systems, and as manager of research and

development and principal investigator in test and evaluation of electronic warfare systems . As Mrs.

Laura Knight-Jadczyk asserts, “Knowledge protects, ignorance endangers.” During the ten years in which the Foundation website had been operational, many thousands of people from around the world have downloaded my books and articles, and yet no one has pointed out any flaw in my reasoning, or proposed any alternative long-term-sustainable system of planetary management. Most people do not wish to consider global nuclear war, or even want to discuss it. It seems almost as if they believe that thinking about it or talking about it might make it more likely to happen. It would appear that ignorance is prevailing, that people simply do not want to “think the unthinkable ,” as Herman Kahn was

wont to say. Global nuclear war is imminent, and people had better start thinking about it, if they want their culture to survive. (Note that when we are speaking of “surviving” nuclear war, we are referring to cultures, not to individuals.

Most individuals will not survive global nuclear war.) The destruction of the biosphere and the extinction of humynkind are very real possibilities, not just in the long-term future, but very soon . Without a concerted effort to solve them, these problems are not going to go away. Continued denial of them and refusal to

address them assures that they will worsen. The era of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which “saved” the world from nuclear war for so long, is over. Nuclear war is just around the corner .

3. {[(Give the judge or the other team Caldwell’s résumé)]}



80/111

A2: Caldwell Racist

1. He’s not racist – Caldwell simply state facts as he sees them. In order to achieve CP solvency the post-CP world should consist of homogenous people to prevent war and conflict

2. Survival is a prerequisite to attain all other values – survival of the humynrace is the topmost priority.

Nye, 86 (Joseph S. 1986; Phd Political Science Harvard. University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; “Nuclear Ethics” pg. 45-46) GZ

Is there any end that could justify a nuclear war that threatens the survival of the species? Is not all-out nuclear war just as self contradictory in the real world as pacifism is accused of being? Some people argue that "we are required to undergo gross injustice that will break many souls sooner than ourselves be the authors of mass murder."73 Still others say that "when a person makes survival the highest value, he has declared that there is nothing he will not betray. But for a civilization to sacrifice itself makes no sense since there are not survivors to give meaning to the sacrifical [sic] act . In that case, survival may be worth betrayal ." Is it possible to avoid the "moral calamity of a policy like unilateral disarmament that forces us to choose between being dead or red (while increasing the chances of both)"?74 How one judges the issue of ends can be affected by how one poses the questions. If one asks "what is worth a billion lives (or the survival of the species)," it is natural to resist contemplating a positive answer. But suppose one asks, "is it possible to imagine any threat to our civilization and values that would justify raising the threat to a billion lives from one in ten thousand to one in a thousand for a specific period?" Then there are several plausible answers, including a democratic way of life and cherished freedoms that give meaning to life beyond mere survival. When we pursue several values simultaneously, we face the fact that they often conflict and that we face difficult tradeoffs . If we make one value absolute in priority, we are likely to get that value and little else . Survival is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of other values , but that does not make it sufficient. Logical priority does not make it an absolute value. Few people act as though survival were an absolute value in their personal lives, or they would never enter an automobile. We can give survival of the species a very high priority without giving it the paralyzing status of an absolute value . Some degree of risk is unavoidable if individuals or societies are to avoid paralysis and enhance the quality of life beyond mere survival. The degree of that risk is a justifiable topic of both prudential and moral reasoning.

3. Racism doesn’t affect the CP – whether Caldwell prefers a specific race doesn’t make the outcome of nuclear war any different. Nuclear war is unbiased.


81/1114. CP still encompasses diversity - hunter-gathers spread around the world will start creating spin-off cultures but still share the common values. Caldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On the Equity of a Synarchic Minimal-Regret Population”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnEquity.htm; July 7th] VL

This brief article was motivated by a remark made to me a few weeks ago that the “minimal-regret” population might indeed preserve the biosphere, but “how would the hunter-gatherers feel about the arrangement?” I must confess that I was initially surprised at this remark, until it

occurred to me that the individual expressing the view had not read any of my works, including Can America Survive? His preconceived notion of “hunter-gatherers” was the common misconception that life for hunter-gatherers was, in the words of Hobbes, “nasty, brutish, and short.” My friend was of the opinion that the hunter-gatherers (of the minimal-regret population) were impoverished, deprived people living in misery, whereas the high-technology urban population were living a wealthy existence with all material comforts. This representation is totally false. As I, and many others, have observed, the life of hunter-gatherers is nothing of the sort imagined by Hobbes. It is a lifestyle that is, overall, exciting, meaningful, pleasant, comfortable, and leisurely. It has been estimated that hunter-gatherer societies can and do provide for all of their needs with about two days’ work per week. The remainder of the time is available for a variety of discretionary social and cultural activities, such as socializing, exploration, discovery, and arts and crafts. At the same time, the life of the members of the single-nation city-state (the planetary management organization) is also, overall, comfortable, meaningful, and fulfilling. From the viewpoint of the activities of daily living, however, the two lifestyles are radically different. It has been said that the major “paths to God” (paths to spiritual realization and development) are

love, knowledge and action. Not all people take the same paths, at the same time. To make life interesting, it is necessary that people and societies are different, and do different things. The greater the level of diversity, the greater the level of interest. Both populations of the minimal-regret scheme are engaged in meaningful and interesting activities . T hose activities are, however, very different. In the synarchic minimal-regret population, there is no global poverty and no global war. There is no global disease: the risk of a planetary epidemic is minimized, because the planetary hunter-gatherer population consists, as in the past, of independent and isolated tribes that intermingle to a very limited degree. There is no global famine. The scourges of civilization – plague, famine, and war – are eliminated.

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnEquity.htm


82/111

A2: We Save The Planet With Our Discourse

1. Single round produces virtually no change – their project is not going to change the communityAtchison and Panetta ‘05(Jarrod, PhD Candidate – U Georgia, and Ed, Professor of Communication – U Georgia, “Activism in Debate: Parody, Promise, and Problems”, NCA Paper)The first problem is the difficulty of any individual debate to generate community change. Although any debate has the potential to create problems for the community (videotapes of objectionable behavior, etc…), rarely does any one debate have the power to create community wide change. We attribute this ineffectiveness to the structural problems inherent in individual debates and the collective forgetfulness of the debate community. The structural problems are clear . Debaters engage in preliminary debates in rooms that are rarely populated by anyone other than the judge or a few scouts. Judges are instructed to vote for the team that does the best debating, but the ballot is rarely seen by anyone outside the tabulation room. Given the limited number of debates in which a judge actually writes meaningful comments, there is little documentation available for use in many cases. During the period when judges interact with the debaters there are often external pressures (filing evidence, preparing for the next debate, etc…) that restrict the ability for anyone outside the debate to pay attention to why a judge voting a particular way. Elimination debates do not provide for a much better audience because debates still occur simultaneously and travel schedules dictate that most of the tournament has left by the later elimination rounds. We find it difficult for anyone to substantiate the claim that asking a judge to vote to solve a community problem in an individual debate with so few participants is the best strategy for addressing important problems. In addition to the structural problems, the collective forgetfulness of the debate community reduces the impact that individual debates have on the community. The debate community has a high turnover rate. Despite the fact that some debaters make their best effort to debate for more than four years, the debate community is largely made up of participants who debate and then move on. The coaches and directors that make up the backbone of the community are the people with the longest cultural memory, but they are also a small minority of the community when considering the number of debaters involved in the activity. We do not mean to suggest that the activity is reinvented every year—certainly there are conventions that are passed down from coaches to debaters and from debaters to debaters. However, given the fact that there are virtually no transcriptions available for everyone to read, it is difficult to assume that the debate community would remember any individual debat e . Additionally, given the focus on competition and individual skill, the community is more likely to remember the accomplishments and talents of debaters rather than what argument they won a particular round on. The debate community does not have the necessary components in place for a strong collective memory of individual debates. We believe that the combination of the structures of debate and the collective forgetfulness means that any strategy for creating community change that is premised on winning individual debates is less effective than seeking a larger community dialogue that is recorded and/or transcribed. The second major problem with attempting to create community change in individual debates is that the debate community is made up of more individuals than the four debaters and one judge that are a part of every debate. The coaches and directors that make up the backbone of the community have very little space for engaging in a discussion about community issues . We suspect that this helps explain why so few debaters get involved in the edebates over activist strategies. Coaches and directors dominant this forum because there is so little public dialogue over the issues that directly affect the community that they have dedicated so much of their professional and personal lives. This is especially true for coaches and directors that are not preferred judges and therefore do not even have a voice at the end of a debate. Coaches and directors should have a public forum to engage in a community conversation with debaters instead of attempting to take on their opponents through the wins and losses of their own debaters.


83/1112. Switch side debate turns this arg – if someone ran the same aff against you guys you would read neg args to it. If even your discourse produces change it is neutralized by the fact you guys have to debate as both the aff and the neg.

3. Turn - Any change is compensated by competitive backlashAtchison and Panetta ‘05(Jarrod, PhD Candidate – U Georgia, and Ed, Professor of Communication – U Georgia, “Activism in Debate: Parody, Promise, and Problems”, NCA Paper)The simple point is this: if we are serious about creating real community change then it is more likely to occur outside of a traditional competitive debate. When a team loses a debate because the judge decides that it is better for the

community for the other team to win then they have sacrificed two potential advocates for change within the community.

Creating change through wins generates backlash through loses . Some people are comfortable with generating

backlash and see the reaction as a sign that the community is at least responding to what they are saying. We believe, however, that any change that is developed as a result of these hostile situations is a pyrrhic victory . Instead of giving up on hope for change and agitating for wins regardless of who is left behind, we believe that the debate community should try public argumentation in order to generate a discussion of necessary community changes. We do not believe that debate rounds as currently constituted represent the best

atmosphere for community change because it is a competition for a win. Beating a team does not generate comrades in the struggle for change.


84/111

A2: Immorality

1. CP’s objectives are not immoral. In fact our goals are the same as yours plus the preservation of humanity,

2. Our advocacy is justified because it is the only means to reach the end of preservation of the biosphere and humanity. CA Ob. 1 A Sub Caldwell in 3 – with each passing day we jeopardize the biosphereCA Ob. 2 A Sub-point Caldwell in 2k – solution is needed urgently, 50 yrs too late, and nuke war solves overpopulationCA Ob. 2 B Sub-point Caldwell – war is the only course of action that can solve biosphere problems

3. If we’re winning Ob. 1 then we’re winning that humynkind will eventually face a nuclear war. That nuclear war would prepare for minimal regret population and would also not preserve the biosphere. That means that voting affirmative paves the way for an industrialized society that will wipe out biodiversity and end in a nuclear war that will end humanity. That nuclear war would be more immoral as our nuclear war.

4. The Aff must be held responsible for the effects of their plan and advocacy. They are uniquely responsible for defending a world post plan. If we win that the world will have a nuclear war the Aff is stuck defending it.

5. Nuclear war is essential to preserve humynkind and the biosphere. CA the B Sub-point from Ob. 3 Caldwell 2002 which contends a nuclear war is crucial to create a better world than the current and future worlds.

6. While war is terrible, destruction of the biosphere is worse. But war is justified if it stops biospheric destruction. Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

With respect to ethical considerations, this book (and the minimal-regret criterion) places strong importance on preserving the planet’s biosphere, and does not place a higher value on the lives of the current living than on those of future

generations. The loss of the six billion current inhabitants of Earth is viewed as an inconsequential price to pay, if that is what is required to save the planet for future use, enjoyment and fulfillment by other living creatures for the next four billion years (the expected remaining lifetime of our solar system). The current wanton

destruction of Earth by humynkind is viewed as a morally repugnant action of grotesque proportions. Humynkind has been given dominion over the planet, and in his venal prodigality has chosen to squander its bounty and destroy its irreplaceable biological diversity. If the morality of nuclear war is to be considered, the morality of destroying a planet and all its species by overpopulation and industrialization must also be considered. Works on this subject include Fritz Schumacher’s books and the plethora of books on environmentalism, including Healing the Planet by Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Rescue the Earth! by Farley Mowat, Gaia: A New Look at Life on 68 Earth by J. E. Lovelock, The End of Nature by Bill McKibben, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management by Norman Myers, ed., and many

more, some of which are listed in the bibliography. Although a minimal-regret nuclear war may kill almost six billion people, that must be balanced against the very real possibility that not having such a war may not only result in the deaths of six billion people, but also the extinction of humynkind and the extinction of all other species on the planet (from the greenhouse effect). If the humyn race is made extinct by the greenhouse effect, millions of people will have been denied life for every year of the next four billion years that the solar system is expected to last. If the Earth can support ten million people indefinitely, that represents forty quadrillion person-years of life. Is that amount of humyn life inconsequential compared to the lives of the mere six billion that occupy the planet today?


85/1117. Even if they win that this action uniquely immoral from the SQ, you’ll still vote neg because of the eventual lives saved

8. CA B Sub-point Caldwell from Ob. 2 – prolonging an industrial society increases the size and magnitude of the terminal nuclear war. This threatens humyn survival.

9. CA Bostrom 11 – Any risk of humyn extinction should be resisted because it’s infinite impact, if humynkind becomes extinct there can be no more reproduction, and even a small reduction of an existential risk is infinitely great.

10. And just for fun - Survival of the humynrace is the topmost priority this is a key perquisite to attain other values and fixing humyn caused problems.

Nye, 86 (Joseph S. 1986; Phd Political Science Harvard. University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; “Nuclear Ethics” pg. 45-46) GZ

Is there any end that could justify a nuclear war that threatens the survival of the species? Is not all-out nuclear war just as self contradictory in the real world as pacifism is accused of being? Some people argue that "we are required to undergo gross injustice that will break many souls sooner than ourselves be the authors of mass murder."73 Still others say that "when a person makes survival the highest value, he has declared that there is nothing he will not betray. But for a civilization to sacrifice itself makes no sense since there are not survivors to give meaning to the sacrifical [sic] act . In that case, survival may be worth betrayal ." Is it possible to avoid the "moral calamity of a policy like unilateral disarmament that forces us to choose between being dead or red (while increasing the chances of both)"?74 How one judges the issue of ends can be affected by how one poses the questions. If one asks "what is worth a billion lives (or the survival of the species)," it is natural to resist contemplating a positive answer. But suppose one asks, "is it possible to imagine any threat to our civilization and values that would justify raising the threat to a billion lives from one in ten thousand to one in a thousand for a specific period?" Then there are several plausible answers, including a democratic way of life and cherished freedoms that give meaning to life beyond mere survival. When we pursue several values simultaneously, we face the fact that they often conflict and that we face difficult tradeoffs . If we make one value absolute in priority, we are likely to get that value and little else . Survival is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of other values , but that does not make it sufficient. Logical priority does not make it an absolute value. Few people act as though survival were an absolute value in their personal lives, or they would never enter an automobile. We can give survival of the species a very high priority without giving it the paralyzing status of an absolute value . Some degree of risk is unavoidable if individuals or societies are to avoid paralysis and enhance the quality of life beyond mere survival. The degree of that risk is a justifiable topic of both prudential and moral reasoning.


86/111

A2: Escalation

1. Extend all our Caldwell ev from the Salvation Ob that says low-intensity nuclear war is specifically planned to happen in one spurt and reduce the population – not to escalate and cause collateral damage.

2. Nuclear war will not escalate. It doesn’t benefit anyone - their argument is illogical and unwarranted.Quilan 05[Michael; Sir Michael Quinlan was a United Kingdom civil servant from 1954 to 1992, mostly in the defense field. He was Private Secretary to the Chief of Air Staff 1962-65; Director of Defense Policy dealing with arms control issues 1968-70; Defense Counselor in the UK Delegation to NATO 1970-73; Deputy Under- Secretary (Policy and Programmers) 1977-81, during the time of NATO's decision to modernize its intermediate-range nuclear forces and the UK's decision to acquire the Trident SLBM system; and Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Defense 1988-92. Since 1992 he has been Director of the Ditchley Foundation; 2005 – “Thinking About Nuclear Weapons”; http://www.rusi.org/download s/assets/WHP41_QUINLAN.pdf]

There are good reasons for fearing escalation: the confusion of war; its stresses, anger, hatred, and the desire for revenge; reluctance to accept the humiliation of backing down; perhaps the temptation to get further blows in first. Given all this, the risks of escalation—which Western leaders were rightly wont to emphasize in the interests of deterrence—are grave. But this is not to say that they are virtually certain, or even necessarily odds-on; still less that they are so for all the assorted circumstances in which the situation might arise, in a nuclear world to which

past experience is only a limited guide. It is entirely possible, for example, that the initial use of nuclear weapons, breaching a barrier that has held since 1945, might so appall both sides in a conflict that they recognized an overwhelming common interest in composing their differences. The humyn pressures in

that direction would be very great. Even if initial nuclear use did not quickly end the fighting, the supposition of inexorable momentum in a developing exchange, with each side rushing to overreaction amid confusion and uncertainty, is implausible; it fails to consider what the decision-makers' situation would really be. Neither side could want escalation; both would be appalled at what was going on; both would be desperately looking for signs that the other was ready to call a halt; both, given the capacity for evasion or concealment which modern delivery systems can possess, could have in reserve ample forces invulnerable enough not to impose `use or lose' pressures. As a result, neither could have any predisposition to suppose, in an ambiguous situation of enormous risk, that the right course when in doubt was to go on copiously launching weapons. And none of this analysis rests on any presumption of highly subtle, pre-concerted or culture-specific rationality; the rationality required is plain and basic.

.

http://www.rusi.org/download%20s/assets/WHP41_QUINLAN.pdf

http://www.rusi.org/download%20s/assets/WHP41_QUINLAN.pdf


87/111

A2: Nuclear War → Authoritarianism

1. Non-unique – Authoritarianism exists in many governmental structures in the world today. For instance, in both gulf wars US attempts to remove a authoritarian regimes caused the burning of oil wells, dumping of oil into the Persian Gulf. This is just one example of how industrial governments and societies devastate the biosphere.

2. No link – this argument assumes that the state still exists in its current form, this nuclear war destroys enough of the population and industry that government in its current form cannot exist.

3. Turn – CP would allow a synarchic governmental structure that would provide more freedoms than SQ democracy. CA Ob. 3 C Sub-point Caldwell 03 from the 1NC – a minimal regret population would establish this synarchic government that recognizes the cohesiveness that must exist in nature

4. The position is also non-unique CA the same card as above (Caldwell 3 C Sub Ob. 3) – any government structure would fail as long as society is in the industrial paradigm

5. SQ is as bad or worse.CA Caldwell 01 Ob.1 G Sub-point – when all fuel is exhausted the globe will be thrown into utter chaos. This world would cause nuclear war and oppressive regimes. The CP would always be more beneficial than this scenario of the SQ


88/111

A2: Nuclear War → Extinction

1. Life will continue after nuclear war but it hedges upon the whether we take action to plan, the current policies show no planning whatsoever – the CP is criticalCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

In the 1960s, I worked for a while in the field of post-nuclear-attack civil-defense analysis, developing postattack countermeasures (vulnerability analysis, decontamination, postattack medical problems). Life will continue after a nuclear attack. This situation will occur, and it must be dealt with. It

may be dealt with in an unprepared, unplanned way, or it may be approached with a plan. With a plan, the odds of prevailing are much better. The situation is analogous to designing an ocean liner. No one wants the liner to hit an iceberg – that is a horrible catastrophe. There are, however, two ways of approaching this possibility. The issue may be ignored, and all hands will go down with the ship unless another ship is nearby for rescue. Or, the liner may be equipped with lifeboats and an evacuation plan. In the case of the Titanic, for example, it has been observed that if, after striking the iceberg the liner had stopped, it may have been possible to place many people on the iceberg, and thereby save them. But the Titanic continued to sail into open ocean, and sank twelve miles from the iceberg. The Titanic had few lifeboats and no plan, and much life was lost. The present approach of the United States government of simply ignoring the possibility of strategic nuclear war, abandoning its

population and letting it deal with the postattack situation as best it can is unconscionable. With respect to a nuclear attack on the US, the US government is an ostrich with its head in the sand. It is a prime manifestation of the country’s complete lack of a sense of purpose or destiny. It has lost its bearings. It does not know what its purpose is or where it is headed. It lives only for the present, in a mindless, purposeless, hedonistic frenzy of economic development. It chooses to invest its energies in gluttony, gorging itself on energy, expanding its population to the max regardless of the consequences for itself or the planet, rather than in planning for or preparing for the future. Other nations, such as the Swiss, have made at least some attempt to deal with this problem. Those who plan for the future may still die, but

they can certainly increase their chance of survival. It is prudent to do so. It is responsible to do so. As much as the US government and many environmentalist movements would lead you to believe, nuclear war will not be the end of the world. On the contrary, it may well be the salvation of the world. The will to survive is indomitable in the humyn spirit, and the survivors will fight to live. After a nuclear war humynkind will simply “pick up the pieces” and start to rebuild industrial civilization all over again. As in previous history, it is likely that economics would continue to be the “driver” of humyn’s progress. If this happens, nothing changes, and the world will simply repeat its present history and race to Armageddon. A minimal-regret strategy offers a possible way to break out of this cycle, to do things differently in the future. It deserves consideration along with other strategies with dealing with the situation before and after the impending nuclear war


89/1112. After the low intensity nuclear war many countries will still be alive. To achieve minimal-regret population another much less destructive war will be needed to determine the single industrialized nation.Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

The preceding chapter shows that, after a 1,000-weapon war, a substantial population remains, and that a larger-scale war is necessary to accomplish defeat of all of the world’s countries. As discussed earlier,

nothing changes in the long run unless a single nation or group takes charge after the war, and moves to maintain global population at a low level. After the nuclear war, the key issue to address is whether a single nation or organization could prevail over (i.e., defeat) each and every one of these remaining countries. The prospect of conventional war with one or several or all of these remaining countries is rather

sobering. If these countries realize what is happening, they will surely ally in an attempt to destroy any single nation or group committed to the elimination of economic activity. To reduce or eliminate this possibility, one approach is to target one nuclear weapon on each of these countries, or at least to each one with population in excess of a specified size, such as one million. With this approach, all of the potential opponents to the single nation are weakened, and the likelihood of success is substantially enhanced.


90/111

A2: Nuclear Fallout/Winter

1. Fallout radiation is not dangerous – it decays over time.Kearny 04[http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm; Cresson; research engineer @ Oak Ridge National Laboratory]

° Myth: Fallout radiation from a nuclear war would poison the air and all parts of the environment. It would kill everyone. (This is the demoralizing message of On the Beach and many similar pseudoscientific books and articles.) °

Facts: When a nuclear weapon explodes near enough to the ground for its fireball to touch the ground, it forms a crater. (See Fig. 1.1.) Many thousands of tons of earth from the crater of a large explosion are pulverized into

trillions of particles. These particles are contaminated by radioactive atoms produced by the nuclear explosion. Thousands of tons of the particles are carried up into a mushroom-shaped cloud, miles above the earth. These radioactive particles then fall out of the mushroom cloud, or out of the dispersing cloud of particles blown by the winds thus becoming fallout. Each contaminated particle continuously gives off invisible radiation, much like a tiny X-ray machine while in the mushroom cloud, while descending, and after having fallen to earth. The descending radioactive particles are carried by the winds like the sand and dust particles of a miles-thick sandstorm cloud except that they usually are blown at lower speeds and in many areas the particles are so far apart that no cloud is

seen. The largest, heaviest fallout particles reach the ground first, in locations close to the explosion. Many smaller particles are carried by the winds for tens to thousands of miles before falling to earth. At any one place where fallout from a single explosion is being deposited on the ground in concentrations high enough to require the use of shelters, deposition will be completed within a few hours. The smallest fallout particles those tiny enough to be inhaled into a person's lungs are invisible to the naked eye. These tiny particles would fall so slowly from the four-mile or greater heights to which they would be injected by currently deployed Soviet warheads that most would remain airborne for weeks to years before reaching the ground. By that time their extremely wide

dispersal and radioactive decay would make them much less dangerous. Only where such tiny particles are

promptly brought to earth by rain- outs or snow-outs in scattered "hot spots," and later dried and blown about by the winds, would these invisible

particles constitute a long-term and relatively minor post-attack danger. The air in properly designed fallout shelters, even those without air filters, is free of radioactive particles and safe to breathe except in a few' rare environments as will be explained later. Fortunately for all living things, the danger from fallout radiation lessens with time. The radioactive decay, as this lessening is called, is rapid at first, then gets slower and slower. The dose rate (the amount of radiation received per hour) decreases accordingly. Figure 1.2 illustrates the rapidity of the decay of radiation from fallout during the first two days after the nuclear explosion that produced it. R stands or roentgen, a measurement unit often used to measure exposure to gamma rays and X rays. Fallout meterfs called dosimeters measure the dose received by recording the number of R. Fallout meters called survey meters, or dose-rate meters, measure the dose rate by recording the number of R being received per hour at the time of measurement. Notice that it takes about seven times as long for the dose rate to decay from 1000 roentgens per hour (1000 R/hr) to 10 R/hr (48 hours) as to decay from 1000 R/hr to 100 R/hr (7 hours). (Only in high-fallout areas would the dose rate 1 hour after the explosion be as high as 1000 roentgens per hour.)


91/1112. The nuclear winter theory is ludicrousNyquist 5/20[http://www.wnd.com/1999/05/6341/; World network daily; 1999]

Professor Michael McElroy, a Harvard physics professor, also criticized the nuclear winter hypothesis. McElroy said that nuclear winter researchers “stacked the deck” in their study, which was titled “Nuclear Winter: Global

Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions” (Science, December 1983). Nuclear winter is the theory that the mass use of nuclear weapons would create enough smoke and dust to blot out the sun, causing a catastrophic drop in global temperatures. According to Carl Sagan, in this situation the earth would freeze. No crops could be grown. Humynity

would die of cold and starvation. In truth, natural disasters have frequently produced smoke and dust far greater than those expected from a nuclear war. In 1883 Krakatoa exploded with a blast equivalent to 10,000 one-megaton bombs, a detonation greater than the combined nuclear arsenals of planet earth. The Krakatoa explosion had negligible weather effects. Even more disastrous, going back many

thousands of years, a meteor struck Quebec with the force of 17.5 million one-megaton bombs, creating a crater 63 kilometers in diameter. But the world did not freeze. Life on earth was not extinguished. Consider the views of Professor George Rathjens of MIT, a known antinuclear activist, who said, “Nuclear winter is the worst example of misrepresentation of science to the public in my memory.” Also consider Professor Russell Seitz, at Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs, who says that the nuclear winter hypothesis has been discredited. Two researchers, Starley Thompson and Stephen Schneider, debunked the nuclear winter hypothesis in the summer 1986 issue of Foreign Affairs. Thompson

and Schneider stated: “the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishingly low level of probability.” OK, so nuclear winter isn’t going to happen. What about nuclear fallout? Wouldn’t the radiation from a nuclear war contaminate the whole earth, killing everyone? The short answer is: absolutely not. Nuclear fallout is a problem, but we should not exaggerate its effects. As it happens, there are two types of fallout produced by nuclear detonations. These are: 1) delayed fallout; and 2) short-term fallout.

3. Nuclear fallout could be easily survived; radiation levels would have little effect Child 86; Ph.D in the history and philosophy of science from Indiana University and Harvard Law School(James W; “Nuclear War: The Moral Dimension pg 59]


92/111

A2: No Recovery

1. Extend Caldwell F sub-point from the Salvation Ob – The survivors of nuclear war will understand the follies of industrialization and will be able to build up a minimal-regret society

2. Our CP specifically attacks population through four attacks – this means collateral damage will be minimal.Caldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?” http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

This appendix presents an analysis showing the damage t hat can be caused to the Earth’s city population by nuclear war. Although interest centers on the damage that can be caused by low-level nuclear war (i.e., an attack of 1,000 small nuclear bombs), damage curves are presented that show the damage over a wide range of attack sizes. The appendix begins with a discussion of the statistical distribution of city sizes, and then proceeds to examine four different types of attack.

These four attacks have different “payoff functions.” The first attack targets population, the second one energy use, and the third one cities in countries having high levels of biodiversity. The fourth attack is a “combination” attack whose payoff function is a combination of population, energy use, and biodiversity

3. (Read cards from “A2: Nuclear War → Extinction” and/or “A2: No Mindset Shift”)


93/111

A2: Life ↓ after CP

1. Both parts of the minimal-regret population will have great lives - the hunter-gathers will also enjoy a much freer, fulfilling, and less oppressive lifestyleCaldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On the Equity of a Synarchic Minimal-Regret Population”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnEquity.htm; July 7th] VL

The comparison of the hunter-gatherer to the high-technology person, however, is much more interesting and pleasant. Both are utilizing (receiving the benefit of) about the same amount of (solar) energy. Most of this energy is used the same way, i.e., to maintain the biosphere, but in the high-technology society a small fraction is used in a very different way: it is converted to manufacture (controllable) energy for technological purposes. The hunter-gatherer can take food and other products from an exquisite variety and bounty of plants and animals with a minimal expenditure of effort and can enjoy an endless variety of spectacular vistas every day. The hunter-gatherer works two days out of seven, whereas the high-technology urban dweller typically works five days out of seven

(whether by choice or necessity). While the quality of life may be high for both the high-technology urban dweller and the hunter-gatherer, it is a radically different lifestyle. Both have the wherewithal to enjoy a meaningful and interesting and exciting existence, but the contexts in which that takes place are very different.

From the viewpoint of “paths to God,” the hunter-gatherer’s lifestyle is dominated by action (hunting, fishing, socializing, adventure, local conflict), whereas the high-technology person’s lifestyle is dominated by knowledge. In today’s terminology, the high-technology society is a “knowledge society.” My friend’s gut reaction was that the hunter-gatherer was “getting the short end of the stick,” in the minimal-regret population paradigm. That is not at all the case. Both share the planet’s solar energy flux equally. The members of both components of the minimal-regret population have freedoms and they have restrictions. They both have challenges, and they both have requirements and obligations. Their activities are very different. Some people would prefer the life of a hunter-gatherer to that of a member of the planetary management organization. It is very clear that most urban dwellers on the planet today, living in misery, squalor, oppression and deprivation, would choose either the lifestyle of the hunter-gatherer society (with 25 square kilometres of natural living space per person) or the lifestyle of a member of the single-nation city-state planetary management organization as preferable to his present existence. That more people would choose one lifestyle to the other is not at all

clear. The preference depends on personality, values and abilities (i.e., their location on their “path to God”). The hunter-gatherer is in fact much “wealthier” than the city-state dweller, in terms of freedom to roam and leisure time (i.e., in terms of freedom in space and time). The challenges in his life may be viewed by some as less complex, or less “civilized,” and therefore less interesting and meaningful than those of the

city-state dweller, but this is arguable, since it depends very much on the personality and stage of development of the individual. The member of the planetary management organization has an assigned mission (viz., a role in the planetary management organization), but so too does the member of the hunter-gatherer society (viz., his role in the tribe). Both have opportunities for spiritual

development, but their life takes place in very different vocational contexts. The high-technology person is involved in management, science, engineering, and all of the other fields of endeavor of technological society. The hunter-gatherer is involved in the challenges of life in a natural environment. The high-technology person has far less leisure time than the hunter-gatherer, and, it may follow, less opportunity for spiritual development. This may help explain, as observed by many New Age writers (e.g., Thom

Hartmann, Neale Donald Walsch) why primitive tribal societies appear to be more developed spiritually than modern technological societies.



94/1112. Both the hunter-gather lifestyle & the industrialized minimal-regret population have more value to life than SQ because there is no war, poverty etc Caldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On the Equity of a Synarchic Minimal-Regret Population”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnEquity.htm; July 7th] VL

This brief article was motivated by a remark made to me a few weeks ago that the “minimal-regret” population might indeed preserve the biosphere, but “how would the hunter-gatherers feel about the arrangement?” I must confess that I was initially surprised at this remark, until it

occurred to me that the individual expressing the view had not read any of my works, including Can America Survive? His preconceived notion of “hunter-gatherers” was the common misconception that life for hunter-gatherers was, in the words of Hobbes, “nasty, brutish, and short.” My friend was of the opinion that the hunter-gatherers (of the minimal-regret population) were impoverished, deprived people living in misery, whereas the high-technology urban population were living a wealthy existence with all material comforts. This representation is totally false. As I, and many others, have observed, the life of hunter-gatherers is nothing of the sort imagined by Hobbes. It is a lifestyle that is, overall, exciting, meaningful, pleasant, comfortable, and leisurely. It has been estimated that hunter-gatherer societies can and do provide for all of their needs with about two days’ work per week. The remainder of the time is available for a variety of discretionary social and cultural activities, such as socializing, exploration, discovery, and arts and crafts. At the same time, the life of the members of the single-nation city-state (the planetary management organization) is also, overall, comfortable, meaningful, and fulfilling. From the viewpoint of the activities of daily living, however, the two lifestyles are radically different. It has been said that the major “paths to God” (paths to spiritual realization and development) are

love, knowledge and action. Not all people take the same paths, at the same time. To make life interesting, it is necessary that people and societies are different, and do different things. The greater the level of diversity, the greater the level of interest. Both populations of the minimal-regret scheme are engaged in meaningful and interesting activities. Those activities are, however, very different. In the synarchic minimal-regret population, there is no global poverty and no global war. There is no global disease: the risk of a planetary epidemic is minimized, because the planetary hunter-gatherer population consists, as in the past, of independent and isolated tribes that intermingle to a very limited degree. There is no global famine. The scourges of civilization – plague, famine, and war – are eliminated.



95/111

A2: Energy Shortage

1. Through solar energy each hunter-gather will have access to massive amounts of energy at no cost to the environmentCaldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On the Equity of a Synarchic Minimal-Regret Population”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnEquity.htm; July 7th] VL

A global hunter-gather population of five million uses no humyn-controlled (“commercial,” “manufactured”) energy. The amount of solar energy utilized to support this lifestyle is, however,

massive. There are about 12.5 billion hectares (125 million square kilometres) of habitable land on the planet. For a global hunter-gatherer population of five million, the humyn population density is about four people per hundred square kilometres. The amount of solar energy reaching one hectare each day in the temperate regions ranges from 15 to 40 million kilocalories (the amount of energy captured by plants is about one percent of the amount reaching the Earth). (See Pimentel and Pimentel, Food,

Energy, and Society, p. 13, for more discussion.) Over the course of a year, the average solar energy received per hectare is about 1.4 x 1010 (14 billion) kcal, which is the equivalent of about 452 thousand gallons (1.7 million liters) of gasoline per hectare per year. Each hunter-gatherer is hence realizing the benefit of 2,500

times this amount (since he requires about 25 square kilometres, or 2,500 hectares, of habitable

land), or about 1.13 billion gallons (4.25 billion liters) of gasoline per year . A global low-technology population of 250 million uses the same total amount of solar energy as the population of five million hunter-gatherers (i.e., all of it!), so each person utilizes 5/250 = 1/25 as much. They also

use a small amount of “manufactured” (controllable) energy. At the present time, people in very underdeveloped countries utilize about 80 kilograms of oil equivalent (kgoe) per person per year of commercial energy.

2. And the highly industrialized nation will have access to 100 times more energy than most nations have todayCaldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On the Equity of a Synarchic Minimal-Regret Population”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnEquity.htm; July 7th] VL

A global high-technology population of five million also uses the same total amount of solar energy as the population of five million hunter-gatherers (i.e., all of it), and a certain amount of manufactured energy. At the present time, people in highly industrialized countries consume about 8,000 kilograms of oil equivalent per person per year of commercial energy. In the single-nation high-technology population of five million (of the minimal-regret population), however, the per-capita utilization of manufactured energy will be much greater than the 8,000 kgoe level of current highly

industrialized societies. The 8,000 kgoe figure is an average, and it is very low. Many of the people of a modern industrial society utilize relatively little manufactured energy, and there are high “fixed costs” of energy for a technological society (so that a small one uses more controllable energy per capita than a large

one). The most productive members control vastly more, e.g., 100 times as much more, than the poor or even the middle-class members of the society. In a minimal-regret population, the high-

technology nation may control, e.g., 100 times as much manufactured energy as today’s average

for highly industrialized nations.




96/1113. Both entities will have equal energy, this ensures not only energy equality but overall equalityCaldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On the Equity of a Synarchic Minimal-Regret Population”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnEquity.htm; July 7th] VL

To summarize, both the members of the high-technology society and the hunter-gatherer society of the minimal-regret populations are deriving benefit from comparable amounts of solar energy (that benefit being preservation of the biosphere). There is much freedom of action and freedom from want, but their lifestyles (activities of daily living) are very different. Any comparison between them must recognize that their lifestyles are multidimensional in nature, and differ markedly on different

dimensions. Since the lifestyles are not single-dimensional, it is not possible to rank them in simple fashion and declare that a

member of one is “better off” or “worse off” than a member of the other. Both are very well off, but in very different ways. From a general concept of “equity,” both populations fare extremely well.



97/111

A2: Demographic Transition

1. Extend our Caldwell ev that says no matter any change we cannot continue industrialization without the destruction of the biosphere – only nuclear war can effectively reduce the population

2. Though demographic transition will reduce the rate of population growth it can’t reduce population –extend our Caldwell ev it shows we are already at state of overpopulation if we keep perpetuating the current population levels biospheric destruction will continue to happen.

3. Demographic transition leads to more energy consumption – as more countries become industrialized they require more energy. If this occurs all energy sources will be depleted within a few years which leads to our impacts.

4. The world population is exploding and current studies show that there’s no way in SQ to solve for this. If we continue on the path of maximum economic growth regardless of the consequences extinction is inevitable.Caldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “The End of the World, and the New World Order”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm; March 6th] VL

World humyn population is exploding. It passed the six billion mark in 1999, and it increases by about 80 million every year. In many regions of the world, the humyn population is increasing at horrific rates, and it will continue to do so because birth rates are very high – much higher than the “replacement” level of just over two children per woman in her lifetime . Birth rates are dropping in many regions, but very slowly, and rarely to replacement levels. Current estimates by the United Nations and the World Bank are that the world

population will continue to increase for decades, even if humyn birth rates were to drop rapidly to replacement levels everywhere. Under the most optimistic assumptions about fertility declines, the humyn population will increase to perhaps nine billion people. If birth rates do not drop to replacement level, the population will continue to soar. History offers no cause for optimism that the humyn population explosion will spare any portion of the world. Underdeveloped nations continue to grow in population until they simply run out of natural resources and cause total destruction of their forests and wildlife. Most developed industrial nations continue to grow in population at about one-half of one percent per year. They strive for maximum and sustained economic growth, regardless of consequences to the local environment or

the planet’s ecological well-being.



98/111

A2: GW GoodFor more ev check under the Impact Stuff folder, in the Warming file

1. Extend Chen in 2k from the Storm Ob – global warming is the gravest threat facing humynity and outweighs totalitarianism, energy depletion, or econ collapse. And we can solve for the said impacts with the CP.

2. Warming threatens the existence of humynkindMazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLAJeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate Conflict: How global warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 122

The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above pre-industrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of

the century." Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of countries in

the developing world - not to mention the associated humyn tragedy. Climate change could even undermine the strength and

stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and

alarmist, many informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in humyn experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case adaptation to these extremes

would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.

3. Warming collapses biodiversity – outweighs all alternate causesHansen 8 – Professor of Earth Sciences @ Columbia


99/111James E, Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City and adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at Columbia University. Al Gore’s science advisor. Introductory chapter for the book State of the Wild. “Tipping point: Perspective of a Scientist.” April. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/StateOfWild_20080428.pdf

Climate change is emerging while the wild is stressed by other pressures— habitat loss, overhunting, pollution,

and invasive species—and it will magnify these stresses . Species will respond to warming at differing paces, affecting many

others through the web of ecological interactions. Phenological events, which are timed events in the life cycle that are usually tied to

seasons, may be disrupted . Examples of phenological events include when leaves and flowers emerge and when animals depart for

migration, breed, or hibernate. If species depend on each other during those times—for pollination or food— the pace at which they respond to warmer weather or precipitation changes may cause unraveling, cascading effects within ecosystems. Animals and plants respond to climate changes by expanding, contracting, or shifting their ranges. Isotherms, lines of a specific average temperature, are moving poleward by approximately thirty-five miles (56 km) per decade, meaning many species ranges may in turn shift at that pace.4 Some already are: the red fox is moving into Arctic fox territory, and ecologists have observed that 943 species across all taxa and ecosystems have exhibited measurable changes in their phenologies and/or

distribution over the past several decades.5 However, their potential routes and habitat will be limited by geographic or humyn-made obstacles, and other species’ territories. Continued business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions threaten many ecosystems, which together form the fabric of life on Earth and provide a wide range of services to humynity. Some species face extinction. The following examples represent a handful. Of particular concern

are polar species , because they are being pushed off the planet. In Antarctica, Adelie and emperor penguins are in decline, as shrinking sea ice has reduced the abundance of krill , their food source.6 Arctic polar bears already contend with

melting sea ice, from which they hunt seals in colder months. As sea ice recedes earlier each year, populations of polar bears in

Canada have declined by about 20 percent, with the weight of females and the number of surviving cubs decreasing a similar amount. As of this writing, the US Fish and Wildlife Service is still considering protecting polar bears, but only after it was taken to court for failure

to act on the mounting evidence that polar bears will suffer greatly due to global warming. 7 Life in many biologically diverse alpine regions is similarly in danger of being pushed off the planet . When a given temperature range moves up a mountain, the area with those climatic conditions becomes smaller and rockier, and the air thinner, resulting in a struggle for survival for some alpine

species. In the Southwest US, the endemic Mount Graham red squirrel survives on a single Arizona mountain, an “island in the sky,” an isolated green spot in the desert. The squirrels, protected as an endangered species, had rebounded to a population of over 500, but

their numbers hav e since declined to between 100 and 200 animals.8 Loss of the red squirrel will alter the forest because its middens are a source of food and habitat for chipmunks, voles, and mice. A new stress on Graham red

squirrels is climatic: increased heat, drought, and fires. Heat-stressed forests are vulnerable t o prolonged beetle infestation and catastrophic fires. Rainfall still occurs, but it is erratic and heavy, and dry periods are more intense . The resulting forest fires burn hotter, and the lower reaches of the forest cannot recover. In the marine world, loggerhead turtles are also suffering. These great creatures return to beaches every two to three years to bury a clutch of eggs. Hatchlings emerge after two months and head precariously to the sea to face a myriad of predators. Years of conservation efforts to protect loggerhead turtles on their largest nesting area in the US, stretching over 20 miles of Florida coastline, seemed to be stabilizing the South Florida subpopulation. 9 Now climate change places a new stress on these turtles. Florida beaches are increasingly lined with sea walls

to protect against rising seas and storms. Sandy beaches seaward of the walls are limited and may be lost if the sea level rises substantially. Some creatures seem more adaptable to climate change. The armadillo, a prehistoric critter that has been around for over 50

million years, is likely to extend its range northward in the US. But the underlying cause of the climatic threat to the Graham

red squirrel and other species—from grizzlies, whose springtime food sources may shift, to the isolated snow vole in the mountains of

southern Spain—is “business-as-usual” use of fossil fuels. Predicted warming of several degrees Celsius would surely cause mass extinctions. Prior major warmings in Earth’s history, the most recent occurring 55 million years ago

with the release of large amounts of Arctic methane hydrates,10 resulted in the extinction of half or more of the species then on the planet. Might the Graham red squirrel and snow vole be “saved” if we transplant them to higher mountains? They would have to compete for new niches— and there is a tangled web of interactions that has evolved among species and ecosystems. What is the prospect that we could understand, let alone reproduce, these complex interactions that create ecological stability?

“Assisted migration” is thus an uncertain prospect. 11 The best chance for all species is a conscious choice by humans humyns to pursue an alternative energy scenario to stabilize the climate .

4. Global warming leads to mass and unending international conflict – we must enact the CP before these impacts occur or else systemic conflict is inevitableKlare 6 – Professor of Peace and World Security StudiesMichael, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, The Coming Resource Wars, 3-10-2006, http://www.alternet.org/environment/33243

http://www.alternet.org/environment/33243

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/StateOfWild_20080428.pdf


100/111

It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British Defense Secretary John Reid warned that global climate change and dwindling natural resources are combining to increase the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water and energy. Climate change, he indicated, "will make scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer" -- and this will "make the emergence of violent conflict more rather than less likely." Although not unprecedented, Reid's prediction of an upsurge in resource conflict is significant

both because of his senior rank and the vehemence of his remarks. "The blunt truth is that the lack of water and agricultural land is a significant contributory factor to the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur," he declared. "We should see this as a warning sign." Resource conflicts of this type are most likely to arise in the developing world, Reid indicated, but the more advanced and affluent countries are not likely to be spared the damaging and destabilizing effects of global climate change. With sea levels rising, water and energy becoming increasingly scarce and prime agricultural lands turning into deserts, internecine warfare over access to vital resources will become a global phenomenon. Reid's speech, delivered at the prestigious Chatham House in London (Britain's equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations), is but the most recent expression of a growing trend in strategic circles to view environmental and resource effects -- rather than political orientation and ideology -- as the most potent source of armed conflict in the decades to come. With the world population rising, global consumption rates soaring, energy supplies rapidly disappearing and climate

change eradicating valuable farmland, the stage is being set for persistent and worldwide struggles over vital resources. Religious and political strife will not disappear in this scenario, but rather will be channeled into contests over valuable sources of water, food and energy. Prior to Reid's address, the most significant expression of this outlook was a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense by a California-based consulting firm in October 2003. Entitled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its

Implications for United States National Security," the report warned that global climate change is more likely to result in sudden, cataclysmic environmental events than a gradual (and therefore manageable) rise in average temperatures.

Such events could include a substantial increase in global sea levels, intense storms and hurricanes and continent-wide "dust bowl" effects. This would trigger pitched battles between the survivors of these

effects for access to food, water, habitable land and energy supplies."Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climate pose a different type of threat to national security than we are accustomed to today," the 2003 report noted. "Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as

energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over ideology, religion or national honor." Until now, this mode of analysis has failed to

command the attention of top American and British policymakers. For the most part, they insist that ideological and religious differences -- notably, the clash between values of tolerance and democracy on one hand and extremist forms of Islam on the other --

remain the main drivers of international conflict. But Reid's speech at Chatham House suggests that a major shift in

strategic thinking may be under way. Environmental perils may soon dominate the world security agenda. This shift is due in part to the growing weight of evidence pointing to a significant humyn role in altering the planet's basic climate systems. Recent studies showing the rapid shrinkage of the polar ice caps, the accelerated melting of North American glaciers, the increased frequency of severe hurricanes and a number of other such effects all suggest that dramatic and potentially harmful changes to the global climate have begun to occur. More importantly, they conclude that humyn behavior -- most importantly, the burning of fossil fuels in factories, power plants, and motor vehicles -- is the most likely cause of these changes. This assessment may not have yet penetrated the White House and other bastions of head-in-the-sand thinking, but it is clearly gaining ground among scientists and thoughtful analysts around the world. For the most part, public discussion of global climate change has tended to describe its effects as an environmental problem -- as a threat to safe water, arable soil, temperate forests, certain species and so on. And, of course, climate change is a potent threat to the environment; in fact, the greatest threat imaginable. But viewing climate change as an environmental problem fails to do justice to the magnitude of the peril it poses. As Reid's speech and the 2003 Pentagon study make clear, the greatest danger posed by global climate change is not the degradation of ecosystems per se, but rather the disintegration of entire humyn

societies, producing wholesale starvation, mass migrations and recurring conflict over resources. "As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to abrupt climate change," the Pentagon report notes, "many countries' needs will exceed their carrying capacity" -- that is, their ability to provide the minimum requirements for humyn survival.

This "will create a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression" against countries with a greater stock of vital resources. "Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply." Similar scenarios will be replicated all across the planet, as those without the means to survival invade or migrate to those with greater abundance --

producing endless struggles between resource "haves" and "have-nots." It is this prospect, more than anything, that

worries John Reid. In particular, he expressed concern over the inadequate capacity of poor and unstable countries to cope with the effects of climate change, and the resulting risk of state collapse, civil war and mass migration. "More than 300 million people in Africa currently lack access to safe water," he observed, and "climate change will worsen this dire situation" -- provoking more wars like Darfur. And even if these social disasters will occur primarily in the developing world, the wealthier countries will also be caught up in them, whether by participating in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations, by


101/111fending off unwanted migrants or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of food, oil, and minerals. When reading of these nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to conjure up images of desperate, starving people killing one another with knives, staves and clubs -- as was certainly

often the case in the past, and could easily prove to be so again. But these scenarios also envision the use of more deadly weapons. "In this world of warring states," the 2003 Pentagon report predicted, "nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable." As oil and natural gas disappears, more and more countries will rely on nuclear power to meet their energy needs -- and this "will accelerate nuclear proliferation as countries develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national security." Although speculative, these reports make one thing clear: when thinking about the calamitous effects of global climate change, we must emphasize its social and political consequences as much as its purely environmental effects. Drought, flooding and storms can kill us, and surely will -- but so will wars among the survivors of these catastrophes over what remains of food, water and shelter. As Reid's comments indicate, no society, however

affluent, will escape involvement in these forms of conflict.


102/111

A2: GW nonexistent

1. A single peer-reviewed study doesn’t disprove overall consensusMann and Schmidt 5 – Both professors @ Major Research institutionsMichael, Professor of Climatology @ Penn State University, Gavin, Professor of Research Science @ Columbia, 1-2005, “Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition,” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/The current thinking of scientists on climate change is based on thousands of studies (Google Scholar

gives 19,000 scientific articles for the full search phrase “global climate change”). Any new study will be one small grain of evidence that adds to this big pile, and it will shift the thinking of scientists slightly. Science proceeds like this in a slow, incremental way. It is extremely unlikely that any new study will immediately overthrow all the past knowledge. So even if the conclusions of the Shaviv and Veizer (2003) study discussed earlier, for instance, had been correct, this would be one small piece of evidence pitted against hundreds of others which contradict it. Scientists would find the apparent contradiction interesting and worthy of further investigation, and would devote further study to isolating the source of the contradiction. They would not suddenly throw out all previous results. Yet, one often gets the impression that scientific progress consists of a series of revolutions where scientists discard all their past thinking each time a new result gets published. This is often

because only a small handful of high-profile studies in a given field are known by the wider public and media, and thus unrealistic weight is attached to those studies. New results are often over-emphasised (sometimes by the authors, sometimes by lobby groups) to make them sound important enough to have news value. Thus “bombshells” usually end up being duds.

2. Warming is real and humyn induced – consensus is on our side – numerous studies proveRahmstorf 8 – Professor of Physics of the OceansRichard, of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University, Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto, Edited by Ernesto Zedillo, “Anthropogenic Climate Change?,” pg. 42-43

It is time to turn to statement B: humyn activities are altering the climate. This can be broken into two parts. The first is as follows: global climate is warming. This is by now a generally undisputed point (except by novelist Michael Crichton), so we deal

with it only briefly. The two leading compilations of data measured with thermometers are shown in figure 3-3, that of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and that of the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change. Although they differ in the details, due to the inclusion of different data sets and use of different spatial averaging and quality control procedures, they both

show a consistent picture, with a global mean warming of 0.8°C since the late nineteenth century. Temperatures over the past ten years clearly were the warmest since measured records have been available. The year 1998 sticks out well above the longterm trend due to the occurrence of a major El Nino event that year (the last El Nino so far

and one of the strongest on record). These events are examples of the largest natural climate variations on multiyear time scales and, by releasing heat from the ocean, generally cause positive anomalies in global mean temperature. It is

remarkable that the year 2005 rivaled the heat of 1998 even though no El Nino event occurred that year. (A bizarre curiosity, perhaps worth mentioning, is that several prominent "climate skeptics" recently used the extreme year 1998 to claim in the media that global warming had ended. In Lindzen's words, "Indeed, the absence of any record breakers during the past seven years is

statistical evidence that temperatures are not increasing.")33 In addition to the surface measurements, the more recent portion of the global warming trend (since 1979) is also documented by satellite data. It is not straightforward to derive a reliable surface temperature trend from satellites, as they measure radiation coming from throughout the atmosphere (not just near the surface), including the stratosphere, which has strongly cooled, and the records are not homogeneous' due to the short life span of individual

satellites, the problem of orbital decay, observations at different times of day, and drifts in instrument calibration.' Current analyses of these satellite data show trends that are fully consistent with surface measurements and model simulations." If no reliable temperature measurements existed, could we be sure that the climate is warming? The "canaries in the coal

mine" of climate change (as glaciologist Lonnie Thompson puts it) ~are mountain glaciers. We know, both from old photographs and from the position of the terminal moraines heaped up by the flowing ice, that mountain glaciers have been in retreat all over the world during the past century. There are precious few exceptions, and they are associated with a strong increase in precipitation or local cooling.36 I have inspected examples of shrinking glaciers myself in field trips to Switzerland, Norway, and New Zealand. As glaciers respond sensitively to temperature changes, data on the extent of glaciers have been used to


103/111reconstruct a history of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past four centuries (see figure 3-4). Cores drilled in tropical glaciers show signs of recent melting that is unprecedented at least throughout the Holocene-the past

10,000 years. Another powerful sign of warming , visible clearly from satellites, is the shrinking Arctic sea ice cover (figure 3-5), which has declined 20 percent since satellite observations began in 1979. While climate clearly became warmer in the twentieth century, much discussion particularly in the popular media has focused on the question of how "unusual" this warming is in a longer-term context. While this is an interesting question, it has often been mixed incorrectly with the question of causation. Scientifically, how unusual recent warming is-say, compared to the past millennium-in itself contains little information about its cause. Even a highly unusual warming could have a natural cause (for example, an exceptional increase in solar activity). And even a warming within the bounds of past natural variations could have a predominantly anthropogenic cause. I come to the question of causation shortly, after briefly visiting the evidence for past natural climate

variations. Records from the time before systematic temperature measurements were collected are based on "proxy data," coming from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and other sources. These proxy data are generally linked to local temperatures in some way, but they may be influenced by other parameters as well (for example, precipitation), they may have a seasonal bias (for example, the growth season for tree rings), and high-quality long records are difficult to obtain and therefore few in number and geographic coverage. Therefore, there is still substantial uncertainty in the evolution of past global or hemispheric temperatures. (Comparing only local or regional temperature; as in Europe, is of limited value for our purposes,' as regional variations can be much larger than global ones and can have many regional causes, unrelated to global-scale forcing and climate change.) The first quantitative reconstruction for the Northern Hemisphere temperature of the past millennium, including an error estimation, was presented by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes and rightly highlighted in the 2001 IPCC report as one of the major new findings since its 1995 report; it is shown in figure 3_6.39 The analysis suggests that, despite the large error bars, twentieth-century warming is indeed highly unusual and probably was unprecedented during the past millennium. This result, presumably because of its symbolic power, has attracted much criticism, to some extent in scientific journals, but even more so in the popular media. The hockey stick-shaped curve became a symbol for the IPCC, .and criticizing this particular data analysis became an avenue for some to question the credibility of the IPCC. Three important things have been overlooked in much of the media coverage. First, even if the scientific critics had been right, this would not have called into question the very cautious conclusion drawn by the IPCC from the reconstruction by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes: "New analyses of proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the twentieth century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years." This conclusion has since been supported further by every single one of close to a dozen new reconstructions (two of which are shown in figure 3-6).Second, by far the most serious scientific criticism raised against Mann, Hughes, and Bradley was simply based on a mistake. 40 The prominent paper of von Storch and others, which claimed (based on a model test) that the method of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes systematically underestimated variability, "was [itself] based on incorrect implementation of the reconstruction procedure."41 With correct implementation, climate field reconstruction procedures such as the one used by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes have been shown to perform well in similar model tests. Third, whether their reconstruction is accurate or not has no bearing on policy. If their analysis underestimated past natural climate variability, this would certainly not argue for a smaller climate sensitivity and thus a lesser concern about the consequences of our emissions. Some have argued that, in contrast, it would point to a larger climate sensitivity. While this is a valid point in principle, it does not apply in practice to the climate sensitivity estimates discussed herein or to the range given by IPCC, since these did not use the reconstruction of Mann, Hughes, and Bradley or any other proxy records of the past millennium. Media claims that "a pillar of the Kyoto Protocol" had been called into question were therefore misinformed. As an aside, the protocol was agreed in 1997, before the reconstruction in question even existed. The overheated public debate on this topic has, at least, helped to attract more researchers and funding to this area of paleoclimatology; its methodology has advanced significantly, and a number of new reconstructions have been presented in recent years. While the science has moved forward, the first seminal reconstruction by Mann, Hughes, and Bradley has held up remarkably well, with its main features reproduced by more recent work. Further progress probably will require substantial amounts of new proxy data, rather than further refinement of the

statistical techniques pioneered by Mann, Hughes, and Bradley. Developing these data sets will require time and substantial effort. It is time to address the final

statement: most of the observed warming over the past fifty years is anthropogenic . A large number of studies exist that have taken different approaches to analyze this issue, which is generally called the "attribution problem." I do not discuss the exact

share of the anthropogenic contribution (although this is an interesting question). By "most" I imply mean "more than 50 percent.”The first and crucial piece of evidence is, of course, that the magnitude of the warming is what is expected from the anthropogenic perturbation of the radiation balance, so anthropogenic forcing is able to explain all of the temperature rise. As discussed here, the rise in greenhouse gases alone corresponds to 2.6

W/tn2 of forcing. This by itself, after subtraction of the observed 0'.6 W/m2 of ocean heat uptake, would Cause 1.6°C of warming since preindustrial times for medium climate sensitivity (3"C). With a current "best guess'; aerosol forcing of 1 W/m2, the expected warming is O.8°c. The point here is not that it is possible to obtain the 'exact observed number-this is fortuitous because the amount of aerosol' forcing is still very' uncertain-but that the expected magnitude is roughly right. There can be little doubt that the anthropogenic forcing is large

enough to explain most of the warming. Depending on aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity, it could explain a large fraction of the warming, or all of it, or even more warming than has been observed (leaving room for natural processes

to counteract some of the warming). The second important piece of evidence is clear: there is no viable alternative explanation. In the scientific literature, no serious alternative hypothesis has been proposed to explain the

observed global warming. Other possible causes, such as solar activity, volcanic activity, cosmic rays, or orbital cycles, are well observed, but they do not show trends capable of explaining the observed warming. Since 1978, solar irradiance has been measured directly from satellites and shows the well-known eleven-year solar cycle, but no trend. There are various estimates of solar variability before this time, based on sunspot numbers, solar cycle length, the geomagnetic AA index, neutron monitor data, and, carbon-14 data. These indicate that solar activity probably increased somewhat up to 1940. While there is disagreement about the variation in previous centuries, different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase during the last sixty-five years. Therefore, this cannot explain the warming, and neither can any of the other factors mentioned. Models driven by natural factors only, leaving the

anthropogenic forcing aside, show a cooling in the second half of the twentieth century (for an example, See figure 2-2, panel a, in chapter 2 of this volume). The trend in

the sum of natural forcings is downward.The only way out would be either some as yet undiscovered unknown forcing or a warming trend that arises by chance from an unforced internal variability in the climate system.

The latter cannot be completely ruled out, but has to be considered highly unlikely. No evidence in the observed record, proxy data, or current models suggest that such internal variability could cause a sustained trend of global warming of the observed magnitude. As discussed, twentieth century warming is unprecedented over the past 1,000 years (or even 2,000 years, as the few longer reconstructions available now suggest), which does not 'support the idea of large internal fluctuations. Also, those past variations correlate well with past forcing (solar variability, volcanic activity) and thus appear to be largely forced rather than due to unforced internal variability." And indeed, it would be difficult for a large and sustained unforced variability to satisfy the fundamental physical law of energy conservation. Natural internal variability generally shifts heat around different parts of the climate system-for example, the large El Nino event of 1998, which warmed, the atmosphere by releasing heat stored in the ocean. This mechanism implies that the ocean heat content drops as the atmosphere warms. For past decades, as discussed, we observed the atmosphere warming and the ocean heat content increasing, which rules out heat release from the ocean as a cause of surface warming. The heat content of the whole climate system is increasing, and there is no plausible source of this heat other than the heat trapped by greenhouse gases. ' A completely different approach to attribution is to analyze the spatial patterns of climate change. This is done in so-called fingerprint studies, which associate particular patterns or "fingerprints" with different forcings. It is plausible that the pattern of a solar-forced climate change differs from the pattern of a change caused by greenhouse gases. For example, a

characteristic of greenhouse gases is that heat is trapped closer to the Earth's surface and that, unlike solar variability, greenhouse gases tend to warm more in winter,

and at night. Such studies have used different data sets and have been performed by different groups of researchers with different statistical methods. They consistently conclude that the observed spatial


104/111pattern of warming can only be explained by greenhouse gases.49 Overall, it has to be considered, highly likely' that the observed warming is indeed predominantly due to the humyn-caused increase in greenhouse gases. ' This paper discussed the evidence

for the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the effect of CO2 on climate, finding that this anthropogenic increase is proven beyond reasonable doubt and that a mass of evidence points to a CO2 effect on climate of 3C ± 1.59C global-warming for a doubling of concentration. (This is, the classic IPCC range; my personal assessment is that, in-the light of new studies since the IPCC Third Assessment Report, the uncertainty range can now be narrowed

somewhat to 3°C ± 1.0C) This is based on consistent results from theory, models, and data analysis, and, even in the absence-of any computer models, the same result would still hold based on physics and on data from climate history alone. Considering the plethora of consistent evidence, the chance that these conclusions are wrong has to be considered minute. If the preceding is accepted, then it follows logically and incontrovertibly that a further increase in CO2 concentration will lead to further warming. The magnitude of our emissions depends on humyn behavior, but the climatic response to various emissions scenarios can be computed from the information presented here. The result is the famous range of future global temperature scenarios shown in figure 3_6.50 Two additional steps are involved in these computations: the consideration of anthropogenic forcings other than CO2 (for example, other greenhouse gases and aerosols) and the computation of concentrations from the emissions. Other gases are not

discussed here, although they are important to get quantitatively accurate results. CO2 is the largest and most important forcing. Concerning concentrations, the scenarios shown basically assume that ocean and biosphere take up a similar share of our emitted CO2 as in the past. This could turn out to be an optimistic assumption; some models indicate the possibility of a positive feedback, with the biosphere turning into a carbon source rather than a sink under growing climatic stress. It is clear that even in the more optimistic of the shown (non-mitigation) scenarios, global temperature would rise by 2-3°C above its preindustrial level by the end of this century. Even for a paleoclimatologist like

myself, this is an extraordinarily high temperature, which is very likely unprecedented in at least the past 100,000 years. As far as the data show, we would have to go back about 3 million years, to the Pliocene, for comparable temperatures. The rate of this warming

(which is important for the ability of ecosystems to cope) is also highly unusual and unprecedented probably for an even longer time. The last major global warming trend occurred when the last great Ice Age ended between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago: this was a warming of about 5°C over 5,000 years, that is, a rate of only 0.1 °C per century. 52 The expected magnitude and rate of planetary warming is highly likely to come with major risk and impacts in terms of sea level rise (Pliocene sea level was 25-35 meters higher than now due to smaller Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets), extreme events (for example, hurricane activity is expected to increase in a warmer climate), and ecosystem loss. The

second part of this paper examined the evidence for the current warming of the planet and discussed what is known about its causes. This part showed that global warming is already a measured and-well-established fact, not a theory. Many different lines of evidence consistently show that most of the observed warming of the past fifty years was caused by humyn activity. Above all, this warming is exactly what would be expected given the anthropogenic rise in greenhouse gases, and no viable

alternative explanation for this warming has been proposed in the scientific literature. Taken together., the very strong evidence accumulated from thousands of independent studies, has over the past decades convinced virtually every climatologist around the world (many of whom were initially quite skeptical, including myself) that anthropogenic global warming is a reality with which we need to deal.


105/111

A2: Eco-optimism

1. Extend all our Caldwell ev from the Storm Ob industrialization is inherent to biospheric destruction through overpopulation, mass species extinction, and resource exploitation

2. Extend all our Caldwell ev from the Salvation Ob that say only specifically planned nuclear war can destroy the Industrial Age and end humyn exploitations

3. All current plans to save civilization or environment are all useless and lead to the destruction of the biosphereCaldwell 9Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2009[Joseph George; “Plan C 1.0: Mobilizing to Save the Biosphere”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/PlanC.htm; Nov 18th] VL

Plan A is how the planet is being run at present: large humyn numbers and industrial activity – global industrialization. Under Plan A, the Earth’s biosphere is being destroyed – the sixth mass species extinction, the direct result of large humyn numbers and industrial activity, is well under way. Plan B is Lester Brown’s concept for an alternative future. He has revised his Plan B several times, and the fourth version is now available

(Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization by Lester R. Brown (W. W. Norton & Company, 2009). Plans A and B are essentially the same, in terms of destructive impact on the biosphere. Both involve large humyn numbers and industrial activity. Both are destroying the biosphere. Plan A is unplanned and uncontrolled growth – unmanaged chaos. Plan B is planned and controlled exploitation, in an attempt to sustain a large humyn population and large amount of industrial activity – as large as possible (e.g., eight billion). Both Plans A and B represent attempts to continue large humyn numbers and industrial activity for as long as possible. They both represent programs for “business as usual” – continuation of the large-scale destruction of the biosphere caused by the high level of resource utilization of large-scale industrial activity. Neither Plan A nor Plan B serves as a long-term-sustainable system of planetary management, for two main reasons and several secondary ones. First, our planet-destroying civilization is the cause of the destruction of the biosphere in which humyn life evolved and on which humyn life depends. This civilization should not be saved – it must not be

saved. If the mass species extinction is to be stopped and huhumynkind is to be saved, this civilization must be ended as quickly as possible. Second, we are just now passing Hubbert’s Peak – the point in time at which global oil production starts to decline, as the planet’s oil reserves deplete. Large-scale industrial civilization will end soon because the energy on which it depends is exhausting. Other reasons why Plans A and B are unlikely to work for very long are the facts that humyn societies have been observed to evolve to a high level of complexity that can no longer be supported and collapse when they attempt to simplify, and that dynamic systems in general (natural or otherwise)

tend to fail catastrophically when serious problems are encountered. See Joseph A. Tainter’s The Collapse of Complex Societies (Cambridge University Press, 1988) and Jared Diamond’s Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (Viking, 2005) for discussion of these points.

http://www.foundationwebsite.org/PlanC.htm


106/1114. Modern people simply milk the environment to a point where it can’t rejuvenate back – conservation doesn’t do anything but delay the impactsCaldwell 1Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2001[Joseph George; “Can America Survive?”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.pdf; November 21st] VL

What about conservation? If by the term “conservation” is meant the Conservation International approach of preserving (not

exploiting) nature, then conservation is fine. If what is meant, however, is being more efficient, less wasteful, and less consumptive (e.g., by recycling, or by using fuel-efficient cars, or by using public transportation), then conservation is of no value, in the context of a large or growing industrial population. With a rising population, conservation is a complete waste of time. It is worse than a waste of

time. It simply delays the day of reckoning and places the planet more seriously in jeopardy. If we reduce waste levels by 10% and then increase population by 15%, we are worse off than before. And that is exactly what is happening. Once humyn society is in a position where it is running out of resources (land or wildlife or energy or whatever) and motivated to conserve, it is already too late. Once humynkind reaches the point where it was making measurable changes to the planet, it is already too late. Primitive cultures (e.g., the American Indian, the nomadic tribes 54 of Africa) moved to an area, depleted its resources, and then

moved on. In a few hundred years, the exhausted abandoned land was rejuvenated, and could accept new humyn inhabitants. Modern humyn stays put. After he destroys the land, he does not move on. The environment is never rejuvenated. This system will never work


107/111

A2: No Mindset Shift

1. Extend Caldwell from The Garden Ob – only after a clean slate will people be able to release the follies of industrialization because of the nuclear war it caused. Thus the will ultimately shift towards the best solution aka the CP.

2. Major catastrophes will teach the humynrace to change our ways to become better and more preservation orientated peopleKubler-Ross 86[Elizabeth-Swiss Physician, Voices of Surival]


108/1113. Confrontation of massive death reprioritizes us and creates species consciousness Fox 87[Michael Allen; Prof @ Queen’s U @ Kinsgston; Nuclear War]

4.

Species consciousness creates environmental ethic and thus saves the biosphereLifton 90[Robert Jay – Center of International Studies @ Princeton; The Genocidal Mentality]


109/111

A2: Democracy Best

1. Democracies are intrinsically flawed which will lead us to paths of certain destruction; we must shift toward a tailored minimal-regret Platonic governmentCaldwell 2Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2002[Joseph George; “A Brief Guide to Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/GuideToPM.htm; September 10th] VL

From recent history (i.e., the destruction of the Earth’s environment and biosphere), it is very clear that the concept of leaving government “to the people,” i.e., to the masses, has been a complete disaster. This was a very grave concern of Plato’s. He regarded democracy as a very inferior form of government. Quoting from Desmond Lee’s Introduction to Plato: The Republic (second edition, Penguin Books, 1974), “In democracy there is a radical lack of cohesion, because there is no proper respect for authority, moral or political. Democratic government is weak government, which plays on the weaknesses of the common humyn instead of giving him the leadership he needs; and it is liable to degenerate into a bitter class-struggle between the haves and the have-nots.” Further, “It involved, said Thucydides, ‘committing the conduct of state affairs to the whims of the multitude,’ and it has been described by a modern writer as government by perpetual plebiscite. …Democracy encourages bad leadership. The people’s judgment of their leaders is not always good, and they can’t be trusted to make the best choice. But quite apart from that, the popular leader, dependent as he is for his position (and perhaps his income) on popular favour, will

constantly be tempted to retain that favour by the easiest possible means. He will play on the likes and dislikes, the weaknesses and foibles of the public, will never tell them an unpleasant truth or advocate a policy that might make them uncomfortable. Like the modern advertiser and salesman, he is dependent on his public, and his position depends on selling them comfort and not telling them the truth. Sophist, salesman, and popular politician are on a par, and the people care little who their leaders are provided they ‘profess themselves the people’s friends.’ Popular leaders are as devoid of true knowledge as are the people they lead. …But that is not the whole story. The salient characteristic of democracy, we learn in Book VIII, is liberty – every individual is free to do as he likes. This gives democratic society a diversity and variety that are very

attractive, but its effect is extremely disintegrating. There is a growing dislike of any authority, political or moral; fathers pander to their sons, teachers to their pupils, ‘and the minds of the citizens become so sensitive that the least vestige of restraint is resented as intolerable.’” Some additional caveats are in order. While the purpose and topics of interest of Plato’s Republic (read Society) and ours may be similar in many respects (i.e., the quest for a social organization for justice and right conduct; ethics, education, and philosophy as well as politics; survival), the situation or context in which we find ourselves today is quite different from that of Plato’s time. The primary objective in Plato’s day was survival

and development and maintenance of the Greek city-state. The primary objective of Solaria is the survival and development and maintenance of the entire planet (or, more specifically, of the humyn species and a biologically diverse biosphere). Given this significant difference in circumstance, the manner of implementation of a Platonic social organization for planetary management may differ in some details. For example, war was then (for several centuries) recognized and utilized as a legitimate and useful means of population control. In our context – a destroyed world in the wake of global nuclear war – continual war may not be, and is probably not, the best means of population control, or a basis for long-term survivability of the species and the biosphere as we know it.



110/1112. Democracy was originally based for the founding fathers to consolidate power and produce mass appeal but its economic basis makes biosphere degradation inevitableCaldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On Democracy as a Basis for Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnDemocracy.htm; July 14th] VL

The concept of “self determination of peoples” was touted by the Nation’s founders, but as soon as South Carolina attempted to secede from the Union, that concept was quickly tossed out the window. The Nation’s founders realized that democracy had serious shortcomings, and they took many steps to restrain it. They allowed the introduction of democratic concepts into society, but severely restricted its practice and

effectively controlled its effects (e.g., “checks and balances,” republicanism). They did not envision or envisage the radical individualism and the radical egalitarianism of today, and had no intention of allowing for direct democracy (e.g., referenda) or extending democracy to all people. A level of participation (of people in government) was tolerated, but not to the degree of relinquishing a significant degree of control. Democracy was introduced to give the masses a sense of participation, as long as it did not significantly interfere with the accumulation and distribution of wealth for the small proportion of society that was in, and remained in, control. Although the founders were able to establish a mass-appeal system that enabled them to continue in control (in their activity of accumulating wealth and exercising power), they had little concern or

regard for (or, at that time, impact on) the global environment. They founded a system that pleased the masses and enabled the powerful to prosper very well, but they did not foresee the tremendous environmental damage that this system (based on ever-increasing growth, industrial production, and destruction of nature) would eventually cause, once technological development continued for some time. And that time has come. It is time to pay the piper. The party’s over. The founders saw democracy as a good system for running a nation, for enabling them to stay in control and accumulate wealth. It is, in fact, an excellent system for running a nation in a

community of nations. It encourages economic development, industrial growth, and population growth, and enables the nation to compete very effectively against other nations. Each citizen perceives that he has a

“stake” in his nation’s success, and works hard not just for himself but also to improve his nation’s strength relative to other nations. The engine of economic growth that free-enterprise democratic government has spawned is truly impressive. The trouble is, however, that once the global industrial activity reaches a point where it is significantly affecting the biosphere (as has been the case now for quite some time (centuries)), the species diversity of the biosphere degrades.



111/1113. Democracy leads to chaos, dissension, and tyranny because it cannot effectively carry out missions.Caldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On Democracy as a Basis for Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnDemocracy.htm; July 14th] VL

The weaknesses of democracy as a system of government have been known since time immemorial. Plato noted two serious flaws: the tendency of the masses to pick poor leaders, and the tendency of democratically elected leaders to pander to the desires of the electorate. He also noted that democracy lacks cohesiveness and engenders a lack of respect for authority (moral or political), and leads to a breakdown of law and order. The diversity and variety of democracy is very appealing, but it leads to chaos, dissension and tyranny. Democracy panders to the lowest common denominator. As you will see from what follows, however, these

weaknesses have nothing to do with my criticism of democracy. Democracy is not good as a basis for a mission-oriented organization or activity, when the mission is important. No one would think of letting a platoon of soldiers decide by vote what they did or did not want to do. The same is true of an airplane or a ship, or

a business, or a religion, or a family. Democracy is fine and works well for running a student body or a parent-teacher organization or a book club or any other social club, whose “mission” does not really matter. It may even be useful for operating small parts of a larger organization, subject to overall control by an executive. As long as humyn society has no specific mission (other than to “populate and dominate

the Earth”), democracy is a fine system of social government. But when humyn society recognizes and accepts its role as the management organization of a planet, democracy becomes an inadequate (at

best irrelevant, at worst pernicious) basis for global social government

4. Democracy fails – its capitalistic oriented mentality encourages exploitation of everything including the biosphereCaldwell 3Caldwell; PhD Statistics, Consultant in Statistics and Information Technology etc; 2003[Joseph George; “On Democracy as a Basis for Planetary Management”; http://www.foundationwebsite.org/OnDemocracy.htm; July 14th] VL

So what’s wrong with democracy? What is wrong with high levels of individual liberty and industrial development? Well, what is wrong with democracy is that it is a very poor system for promoting the long-term survival of the biosphere as we know it – either of the humyn species or the other species in it. The concept underlying democracy is that it helps people pursue life, liberty and happiness. With a large amount of personal freedom, the prospect of keeping a large

share of the product of one’s labour, and access to plenty of resources, the citizens of a democracy work hard to achieve more. And they do produce and achieve more. But more is never enough. No matter what the standard of living, every nation strives for a higher standard of living. No matter what the total amount of national economic output, every nation wants to increase it. This works fine as long as the humyn population is so small that humynkind’s presence and activities do not have any significant impact on the biodiversity of the planet, but it does not work well at all as soon as the size of the humyn population and its industrial development reach a stage where they begin to make significant changes in the biosphere. And that is where we are now. Solely as the result of large humyn numbers and industrial production, humynkind is now causing the sixth mass species extinction of the biosphere. And humynity is powerless to stop it. It is not just democracy that is at fault, or is even the principal cause of this problem. All species strive to propagate to fill the space available to them. With the advent of technology and the windfall of fossil fuel, humynkind possessed the wherewithal to reproduce (and produce) to the extent that it was eventually displacing every other species on the planet. It would not matter if

the world were run by socialism, monarchism, communism, or any other system of government that encourages people to destroy nature. All that matters is whether the system in place allows the humyn population to grow and produce and consume without limit, to the point where it is destroying much of the natural habitat of the planet. And democracy, coupled with a social commitment to unrestricted growth, is accomplishing this very effectively at the present time. Under democracy, combined with a high level of personal freedom, industrial activity and growth continues and natural habitat continues to shrink in quantity and quality (diversity).



spark debate

Documents

yemeni dagger

generalized

neale donald

millennium

sun microsystems

unforced internal

lambda corporation

globally distributed