Space Colonization

Human extinction is inevitablehuman development necessitates catastrophic

consequences like nuclear conflict, disease spread, and natural disastersthe only
way to extend humanity indefinitely is through space colonization.
Huang 5 (Michael, Spaceflight or Extinction, cites Carl Sagan who was a professor of astronomy and
space sciences at Cornell University, cites J. Richard Gott III who is a professor of astrophysical sciences
at Princeton University, cites Martin Rees who is a professor of cosmology and astrophysics and Master
of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge. http://www.spaext.com/)
[If there are civilizations elsewhere in the universe,] Their eventual choice, as ours, is spaceflight or extinction. Carl
Sagan ...the only factor that appears to have improved a family of organisms chance of survival was widespread
geographic colonization at the time of the event. The Columbia Encyclopedia The goal of the human spaceflight program
should be to increase our survival prospects by colonizing space. J. Richard Gott The aim of astronautics is to extend
life to there, to establish habitats beyond Earth. This should be achieved not only for its intrinsic value, but to ensure the safety
of the human species through a critical stage of its development. A civilization restricted to the surface of a single
planet has inevitable threats to its long-term existence. Natural threats such as epidemics and impacts from space
objects, and man-made threats such as nuclear and biological war, will be joined by new threats from emerging
sciences and technologies. If we have self-sufficient human settlements throughout the solar system, and access to life
support technology on Earth, humankind would have a secure future. A global catastrophe, although terrible, would not
end the human species and the potential of a universe filled with intelligent life. We have a choice between two
possible futures: spaceflight or extinction. To do nothing is a choice for the second future. The aim of this web site is to contribute
towards the first. The theme of this book is that humanity is more at risk than at any earlier phase in its history. The wider
cosmos has a potential future that could even be infinite. But will these vast expanses of time be filled with life, or as empty as the Earths first
sterile seas? The choice may depend on us, this century.



Whales
Loss of whales causes extinctionoxygen and plankton disruption.
Barstow 1989 (Robbins, PhD, Exec Dir Cetasean Society International, The Magazine of the Whale and
Dolphin Conservation Society, No. 2, Autumn,
http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Movements/General/be-wh-s2.htm)
My own rationale for asking the IWC to decide to adopt a management regime of permanent protection for
whales from consumptive commercial exploitation on a global basis is both simple and complex. It is
grounded i pragmatic practicalities of both fact and feeling regarding 'Whales in a Modern World'. I am
not here arguing for the sanctity of all life on earth. I am not advocating equal rights for all animal
species. I am seeking to set forth a rational and moral basis for a future determination by one,
specialised, international, human agency that one order of marine mammals should be managed in this
manner. Why whales? My rationale most simply is that whales are uniquely special! They really are in a
class by themselves. Let me cite four major categories of uniqueness. First, whales are biologically
special. Whales include by far the largest animals on earth, growing to be over 30 metres in length the
blue whale (Balenoptera musculus). Whales include the possessors of by far the largest brain of any
creature ever to have lived on our planet, weighing four or five times as much as the human brain the
sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus). Whales include the creators of the most complex, long lasting,
repetitive sound patterns of any non human animal the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).
And whales include species (Tursiops truncatus and some other odontocetes) which exceed humans and
all other groups as well in convolutedness or fissurisation of the cerebral cortex. Marine mammal
veterinarian Sam Ridgway, of the U.S. Naval Ocean Systems Centre in San Diego, has reported findings
that the bottlenose dolphin, in particular, by a variety of measurements (encephalisation quotient,
volume of cortex, ratio of brain weight to spinal cord weight, etc.) ranks just below humans and
considerably above other higher primates, including gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans. In all these
ways whales are truly unique biologically! Second, whales are ecologically special. Whales have evolved as
marine mammals over millions of years, with both baleen and toothed whales probably appearing up to
25 million years ago, long before the development of human beings and the latter's intrusion in the
ocean ecosystem. Whales are at the top of the vast food chain of the sea. Baleen whales consume the largest
amount of zooplankton, and the killer whale (Orcinus orca) is the world's greatest non- human predator.
Whales affect the ocean ecosystem in a uniquely global manner, and any exploitation of other marine resources,
whether krill or fish, must uniquely take into account cetaceans. Human life depends upon a proper balance in
the amount of oxygen inn earth's atmosphere produced from the plankton that is kept in check most critically by
whale consumption.

CO2 Ag
Only increasing CO2 can increase photosynthesis, land and water efficiency to feed the
world without collapsing the biosphere. The impact is extinction.
Sherwood Idso, Center for Science and Public Policy, 2006 (Agriculture (Our Greatest Challenge), Jan 12,
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/ co2weekly/20060112/20060112_02.html)
If one were to pick the most significant problem currently facing the biosphere, this would
probably be it: a single species of life, Homo sapiens, is on course to completely annihilate fully two-
thirds of the ten million or so other species with which we share the planet within a mere
hundred years, simply by taking their land. Global warming, by comparison, pales in
significance. Its impact is nowhere near as severe, being possibly nil or even positive. In addition,
its root cause is highly debated; and actions to thwart it are much more difficult, if not impossible, to both define and implement. Furthermore,
what many people believe to be the cause of global warming, i.e., anthropogenic CO2 emissions, may actually be a
powerful force for preserving land for nature. What parts of the world are likely to be hardest hit by the human land-
eating machine? As described in our Editorials of 2 May 2001 and 13 June 2001, Tilman et al. (2001) note that developed countries are expected
to actually withdraw large areas of land from cultivation over the next 50 years, leaving developing countries to shoulder essentially all of the
burden of feeding the growing numbers of our species. In addition, they calculate that the loss of these countries' natural ecosystems to cropland
and pasture will amount to about half of all potentially suitable remaining land, which "could lead to the loss of about a third of remaining tropical
and temperate forests, savannas, and grasslands," along with the many unique species of both plants and animals that they support, which
scenario has also been discussed by Pretty et al. (2003). What can be done to alleviate this bleak situation? In another analysis of the problem,
Tilman et al. (2002) introduce a few more facts before suggesting some solutions. They note, for example, that by 2050 the human population of
the globe is projected to be 50% larger than it is today and that global grain demand could well double, due to expected increases in per capita real
income and dietary shifts toward a higher proportion of meat. Hence, they but state the obvious when they conclude that "raising yields on
existing farmland is essential for 'saving land for nature'." So how is it to be done? Tilman et al. (2002) suggest a strategy that is built around
three essential tasks: (1) increasing crop yield per unit of land area, (2) increasing crop yield per unit of nutrients applied, and (3) increasing crop
yield per unit of water used. With respect to the first of these requirements, Tilman et al. note that in many parts of the world the historical rate of
increase in crop yields is declining, as the genetic ceiling for maximal yield potential is being approached. This observation, they say, "highlights
the need for efforts to steadily increase the yield potential ceiling." With respect to the second requirement, they note that "without the use of
synthetic fertilizers, world food production could not have increased at the rate it did [in the past] and more natural ecosystems would have been
converted to agriculture." Hence, they say the ultimate solution "will require significant increases in nutrient use efficiency, that is, in cereal
production per unit of added nitrogen, phosphorus," and so forth. Finally, with respect to the third requirement, Tilman et al. note that "water is
regionally scarce," and that "many countries in a band from China through India and Pakistan, and the Middle East to North Africa either
currently or will soon fail to have adequate water to maintain per capita food production from irrigated land." Increasing crop water use efficiency,
therefore, is also a must. Although the impending biological crisis and several important elements of its potential solution are thus well defined,
Tilman et al. (2001) report that "even the best available technologies, fully deployed, cannot
prevent many of the forecasted problems." However, we have a powerful ally in the ongoing rise in the atmosphere's CO2
concentration that can provide what we can't. For a nominal doubling of the air's CO2 content, for example, the productivity of earth's herbaceous
plants rises by 30 to 50% (Kimball, 1983; Idso and Idso, 1994), while the productivity of its woody plants rises by 50 to 80% (Saxe et al. 1998; Idso
and Kimball, 2001). Hence, as the air's CO2 content continues to rise, so too will the land use
efficiency of the planet rise right along with it. In addition, atmospheric CO2 enrichment
typically increases plant nutrient use efficiency and plant water use efficiency (see Nitrogen Use
Efficiency and Water Use Efficiency in our Subject Index). Thus, with respect to all three of the major needs noted by Tilman et al. (2002),
increases in the air's CO2 content pay huge dividends, helping to increase agricultural output without the taking of land away from nature. In
conclusion, it would appear that the extinction of two-thirds of all species of plants and
animals on the face of the earth is essentially assured within the next century, unless world
agricultural output is dramatically increased. This unfathomable consequence hangs over us simply because we will need
more land to produce what is required to sustain ourselves and, in the absence of the needed productivity increase, because we will simply take
land from nature to keep ourselves alive. It is also the conclusion of scientists who have studied this problem in depth that the needed increase in
agricultural productivity is not possible, even with anticipated improvements in technology and expertise. With the help of the ongoing
rise in the air's CO2 content, however, we should be able - but just barely - to meet our expanding
food needs without bringing down the curtain on the world of nature. That certain forces continue to resist
this reality is truly incredible. More CO2 means life for the planet; less CO2 means death ... and not just the
death of individuals, but the death of species. And to allow, nay, to cause the extinction of untold millions of unique plants and animals has got to
rank close to the top of all conceivable immoralities. We humans, as stewards of the earth, have got to get our priorities straight by getting our
facts straight. We have got to do all that we can to preserve nature by helping to feed humanity; and to be successful, we have got to let the air's
CO2 content rise. Any policies that stand in the way of that objective are truly obscene.

Cyberterror
Cyberattacks cause extinction
Andreasen 6/14/2013 national security consultant to the Nuclear Threat Initiative and its Nuclear
Security Project (Steve, Cyberwars Threat Does Not Justify a New Policy of Nuclear Deterrence,
6/14/13, http://www.nti.org/analysis/opinions/cyberwars-threat-does-not-justify-new-policy-nuclear-
deterrence/)
President Obama is expected to unveil a new nuclear policy initiative this week in Berlin. Whether he can make good
on his first-term commitments to end outdated Cold War nuclear policies may depend on a firm presidential directive to the Pentagon rejecting
any new missions for nuclear weapons in particular, their use in response to cyberattacks. The Pentagons Defense Science
Board concluded this year that China and Russia could develop capabilities to launch an existential cyber attack against the United States
that is, an attack causing sufficient damage that our government would lose control of the country. While the manifestation of a nuclear and
cyber attack are very different, the board concluded, in the end, the existential impact to the United States is the
same. Because it will be impossible to fully defend our systems against existential cyberthreats, the board
argued, the United States must be prepared to threaten the use of nuclear weapons to deter cyberattacks.
In other words: Ill see your cyberwar and raise you a nuclear response. Some would argue that Obama made clear in his
2010 Nuclear Posture Reviewthat the United States has adopted the objective of making deterrence of nuclear attacks the
sole purpose of our nuclear weapons. Well, the board effectively reviewed the fine print and concluded that the Nuclear
Posture Review was essentially silent on the relationship between U.S. nuclear weapons and
cyberthreats, so connecting the two is not precluded in the stated policy. As the board noted, cyberattacks can occur very
quickly and without warning, requiring rapid decision-making by those responsible for protecting our
country. Integrating the nuclear threat into the equation means making clear to any potential adversary
that the United States is prepared to use nuclear weapons very early in response to a major cyberattack
and is maintaining nuclear forces on prompt launch status to do so. Russia and China would certainly take note and
presumably follow suit. Moreover, if the United States, Russia and China adopted policies threatening an early
nuclear response to cyberattacks, more countries would surely take the same approach. Its hard to see
how this cyber-nuclear action-reaction dynamic would improve U.S. or global security. Its more likely to lead to
a new focus by Pentagon planners on generating an expanding list of cyber-related targets and the operational deployment of nuclear forces to
strike those targets in minutes. Against that backdrop, maintaining momentum toward reducing the role of nuclear
weapons in the United States national security strategy (and that of other nations) a general policy course pursued by
the past five presidents would become far more difficult. Further reductions in nuclear forces and changes in
hair-trigger postures, designed to lessen the risk of an accidental or unauthorized nuclear launch,
would also probably stall. Fortunately, Obama has both the authority and the opportunity to make clear that he meant what he said
when he laid out his nuclear policy in Prague in 2009. For decades, presidential decision directives have made clear the purpose of nuclear
weapons in U.S. national security strategy and provided broad guidance for military planners who prepare the operations and targeting plans
for our nuclear forces. An update to existing presidential guidance is one of the homework items tasked by the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.
Cyberthreats are very real, and there is much we need to do to defend our military and critical civilian
infrastructure against what former defense secretary Leon E. Panetta referred to as a cyber Pearl Harbor
including enhancing the ability to take action, when directed by the president, against those who
would attack us. We also need more diplomacy such as that practiced by Obama with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, at their recent
summit. Multinational cooperation centers could ultimately lead to shared approaches to cybersecurity,
including agreements related to limiting cyberwar.