Global Nuclear War is Good

Biosphere collapse is inevitable our species continues to pillage the planet and one way or another we are going to destroy it. My Barry in 15 evidence is very specific to this. The only way that we can attempt to get rid of our current mindset in relation to the environment and war is ti have a minimal regret strategy to have a nuclear war. The only way we have a chance of surviving is to start an all-out nuclear war! This was my Caldwell in 10 evidence that calls for an all-out nuclear war because it is the only way we can ever shift our consciousness. This Shift in consciousness will "create a world beyond the dichotomy of war" meaning that this will indeed be the ear to end all wars, This will create not only a world where we respect ourselves and other like us but also the environment and other species the we live with. I only need to win four things. 1. In the world of the Con we are all dead form the impending biosphere collapse. 2. The nuclear war stops the biosphere from collapsing. 3. Some form of life will continue to exist on earth. 4. That life will have a peaceful mindset which stops error replication. Framing Utilitarianism is the only moral framework and is what this debate must be viewed through Nye, 86 (Joseph S. 1986; Phd Political Science Harvard. University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; "Nuclear Ethics" pg. 18-19) an army captain is about to order his men to shoot two peasants lined up against a wall. and tells you that if you will shoot one peasant, he will free the other.. Will you shoot one person with the consequences of saving one, or will you allow both to die but preserve your moral integrity by refusing to play his dirty game? The point is to show the value and limits of both traditions. Integrity is clearly an important value, and many of us would refuse to shoot. But at what point does the principle of not taking an innocent life collapse before the consequentialist burden? This just means that you should be framing the debate though a lens of Utilitarianism. Collapse debate 1.A 7 percent increase of industrialization means we are past the tipping point. Old studies fail, means bio d death assured. San Francisco University 2012 http://www.sfu.ca... ,The odds are very high that the next global state change will be extremely disruptive to our civilizations., we went from being hunter-gatherers to being moon-walkers during one of the most stable and benign periods in all of Earth"s history. "Once a threshold-induced planetary state shift occurs, there"s no going back. it won"t revert back to the old system. The planet doesn"t have any memory of the old state." These projections contradict the popularly held belief that the extent to which human-induced pressures, are destroying our planet is still debatable, and any collapse would be both gradual and centuries away. we better not exceed the 50 per cent mark of wholesale transformation of Earth"s surface or we won"t be able to delay, never mind avert, a planetary collapse. We"ve already reached the 43 per cent mark through our conversion of landscapes into agricultural and urban areas, , humans have not done anything to stave off the worst 2.Time Frame Magnifier- We must act with quickness " past 2020 all actions are irrelevant and every day past 2015 is playing with fire. We are on the Brink! Meadows, 14 [Dennis, Dennis Meadows is a co-author of The Limits to Growth. In 1972, was on a team of 66 scientists doing research about the Earth "Peak Energy & Resources, Climate Change, and the Preservation of Knowledge" http://energyskeptic.com... Once the peaks occur (between 2015 and 2020) all bets are off: past that point, the predictive ability is not to be relied on because the assumptions on which it relies will no longer be valid." in 1972 we had reached about 85% of Earth"s carrying capacity and today we are about 125%, and every month we delay in getting back within limits erodes Earth"s further ability to tolerate us. ". We have fundamentally altered the nitrogen, carbon and potassium cycles of the planet. It may never go back to an ecosystem in which bipedal mammals with bicameral brains were possible. Or, not for millions of years". The Con says that abortions are good enough for population control however the article I used was from 2015 which means it assumes Roe Vs. Wade and took abortions into account which means that even with abortion and less kids overpopulation is still leading to the collapse of the biosphere Next the Con says that we can just find alternative energy, but this isn"t good enough for a few reasons, 1. Cross apply meadows here we are all dead by 2020 so we would have to find it by then. 2. There were three reasons that the biosphere will collapse not one so even if alternative energy solves for resource depletion even though it can"t quick enough the biosphere will collapse because of inequality and over population. Solvency debate The Con didn"t do any work here other than making a claim that nukes aren"t the best way, but doing that they concede that a nuclear war solves for the biosphere collapsing. So I won"t spend much time here. 1.Spark solves biosphere collapse takes out industrialization a key internal to collapse. Caldwell 2014 (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Can America Survive Published 2014 The candidate minimal-regret population puts an 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 raises the likelihood of mankind"s survival back to what it has been for hundreds of thousands of years. It saves the planet for future generations. It restores to all other species the freedom and ability to continue to exist 2.A quick nuclear war is key " actions past 2020 are irrelevant Cross Apply Meadows in 14 from the Collapse Debate Survivability debate 1.Only .000001% chance of extinction from 150 teragrams of black carbon nuclear winter Shulman, 12 [Carl, Writer for Overcoming Bias.com "Nuclear Winter and Human Extinction: Q&A with Luke Oman (Luke Oman was a scientist who studied climate change in the world of a nuclear war in 2007) November 5 2012 http://www.overcomingbias.com... The probability I would estimate for the global human population of zero resulting from the 150 Tg of black carbon scenario in our 2007 paper would be in the range of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000.(.00001% chance of extinction) Biggest population impacts would likely be Northern Hemisphere interior continental regions with relatively smaller impacts possible over Southern Hemisphere island nations like New Zealand. 2.The WHO and Harvard agree " nuclear radiation has no effect on children of survivors Dallas, 15 [Cham, Professor and director at the Institute for Disaster Management at University of Georgia "How to Survive a Nuclear War" August 16 2015 http://www.newsweek.com... long-term investigations have concluded there are no statistically significant increases in birth defects resulting in atomic bomb survivors.. A WHO study concluded that there were no differences in rates of mental retardation and emotional problems in Chernobyl radiation-exposed children compared to children in control groups. A Harvard review concluded that there was no substantive proof regarding radiation-induced effects on embryos or fetuses from the accident. They say nuclear radiation but my Dallas in 15 answered that back They say Nuclear winter but my Shulman in 12 answered that back Mindset shift debate The Con doesn"t do any work here so grant that there will be a mindset shift after the nukes. I won"t spend much time here either. A MINIMAL REGRET SOCIETY CREATES HARMONY & A MEANINGFUL EXISTENCE BETWEEN A HIGH & LOW-TECH CULTURES. THEIR MUTUAL DEPENDENCE WILL CHECK RAMPANT INDUSTRIALIZATION & RISKS OF EXISTINCTION CALDWELL 2003 [Joseph George Caldwell, Handbook of Planetary Management, One of the fascinating aspects of the minimal-regret is the fact that it allows for and promotes both a high-technology society and low-technology societies on the planet. In a minimal-regret-population world, both cultures exist in harmony. Both exist on the same planet in a symbiotic relationship preventing the rise of mass (global) industrialization. and dramatically reduces the likelihood of human-species extinction from catastrophic incident