Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunization

WE HAVE OVERSHOT OUR CARRYING CAPACITY. WE ARE ON THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION IF WE DON'T ACT SOON. Zerker 2008 [Sally F., professor emeritus and senior scholar at York University, National Post, "Malthus was right", 7/11/08 Malthus saw the 18th-century phenomenon of continuous population increase as a threat to human civilization. Left unchecked, be believed, populations would double themselves every 25 years, a growth rate that would quickly outstrip the available food supply. This Malthusian idea soon took on the mantra of certainty: Unlimited population growth could only end in disastrous famines and starvation. In recent months, food prices have risen dramatically and suddenly. In the past year, the price of wheat is up 120%. The cost of cooking oil, rice and other staples have doubled since January. For the 1.5-billion people who live on less than $2 a day, food typically accounts for almost all of their meager budget. Soaring food prices represent a calamity for these people, which explains At current inflated prices, we can expect outright starvation in the poorer regions of the world why food riots have broken out across the globe. That global social division between rich and poor is undergoing a shift, and it is one that has the potential for unleashing a massive humanitarian crisis. Malthus may yet be vindicated. DISEASE PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN CHECKING POPULATION EXPANSION. MODERN MEDICINE HAS DESTROYED THIS NATURAL CHECK Hardin 1991 [Garret, PROFESSOR EMERITUS HUMAN ECOLOGY AT UCSB,"From Shortage to Longage: Forty Years in the Population Vineyards" The potential of exponential growth in the human population is a standing threat of human welfare. Until very recently, however, this threat was mitigated by the sporadic eruption of such crowd-diseases as dysentery, cholera and plague which, at their worst, could wipe out a quarter to a half of a population in a year or two. Crowd-diseases were the most important negative feedbacks of the Malthusian demostat. In the past two centuries much effort has been expended looking for acceptable internal population controls-so far without much success. This daunting problem remains to be solved. OVERPOPULATION LEADS TO GENOCIDAL WARS Kodel 2004 [Gary S., M.D., family physician in private practice in Los Angeles, volunteer for The Children's Nature Institute, 2004, World Future Society, Global Strategies Forum "Why Are We So Vulnerable?" Overpopulation caused crowded living conditions with enhanced competition for scarce resources, which contributed to the development of a style of war unique to civilization: the destruction of human cultures causing reductions in human diversity - genocide - rendering humanity vulnerable to changes leading to human extinction. ABSOLUTE REVERENCE FOR HUMAN LIFE ULTIMATELY LEADS TO ITS DESTRUCTION. WE NEED TO PRESERVE CARRYING CAPACITY. Hardin 1991 [Garret, PROFESSOR EMERITUS HUMAN ECOLOGY AT UCSB, "From Shortage to Longage: Forty" When a country is overpopulated-when its population is greater than the carrying capacity of its land, whatever standard of living is used in reaching a judgementsaving lives today by direct gifts of food ensures that more lives will be lost tomorrow. The time-blind ideal, "Human life is sacred," is counterproductive. "'Sacred," like all old words, has many meanings and connotations. What we are concerned with here is its related meaning of sacrosanct or inviolable. When disputants say that human life is sacred they clearly mean that we should preserve every human being now living regardless of the cost, either now or in the future. When an ecological moralist proposes an Eleventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not transgress the carrying capacity," he is trying to improve the quality of life over a long period of time. Go to the AC. At this point in the debate, I'm outweighing him on magnitude through my impact of genocide and extinction, and timeframe and probability by the impacts already happening. You're not going to be looking at his impacts in the round but rather you're looking at mine because mine are ultimately outweigh his. His standards don't matter. There are many ways of proving this resolution true or false and one way cannot simply be the best way. Contention one: Cross apply the case and turn his impact. Contention two: There's no offense coming out of this contention after contention one has been turned.