Wipeout Answers

Wipeout Answers1**Wipeout Frontline**2Wipeout Frontline [1/3]2Wipeout Frontline [2/3]Error! Bookmark not defined.Wipeout Frontline [3/3]Error! Bookmark not defined.Ext Universe Destruction Inevitable2Ext Alien InterventionError! Bookmark not defined.Ext Infinite Universes2Ext Heat Death K/T Value to Life2Ext Heat Death Links - Technology2Ext Wormholes Solve Heat Death2Ext Heat Death Coming Now2Ext Wormholes Solve Extinction2Ext Heat Death Extinction2A2: Heat Death Wont Happen2A2: Wormholes Not Feasible2***Wipeout Scenario Answers***2A2: Prevents Destruction of Plant/Animal Life2A2: HAARP2A2: HAARPError! Bookmark not defined.A2: Inertia Weapons2A2: Inertia WeaponsError! Bookmark not defined.A2: Rods From God Defense2A2: Rods From God Offense2A2: False Vacuums2A2: Time Travel2A2: Time TravelError! Bookmark not defined.A2: Time Travel No Tech2A2: Anti-Gravity Weapons2A2: Anti-Gravity Weapons2A2: Proton Disintegration Weapons2A2: Gamma Weapons2A2: Anti-Matter Weapons2A2: Anti-Matter WeaponsError! Bookmark not defined.A2: Particle Accelerators2A2: Particle AcceleratorsError! Bookmark not defined.A2: Particle AcceleratorsError! Bookmark not defined.A2: Particle AcceleratorsError! Bookmark not defined.A2: Particle Accelerator Black Hole Impact2A2: Particle Accelarators Strangelets Impacts2A2: Particle Accelerator Strangelets Impact2A2: Particle Accelerator Vacuum Impacts2A2: Gold-Gold Collisions In Particle Acceleration A Unique Risk2A2: Grey Goo Frontline2A2: Gray Goo Its Impossible2A2: Gray Goo Its Impossible2A2: Gray Goo Its ImpossibleError! Bookmark not defined.A2: Gray Goo Its Impossible2A2: Gray Goo Its ImpossibleError! Bookmark not defined.A2: Gray Goo Blue Goo Solves2A2: Gray Goo Wont Destroy Universe (Wipeout Specific)2Nano-Tech Good2Nano-Tech Good2Nano-Tech GoodError! Bookmark not defined.Nano-Tech Inevitable2A2: Quantum Vacuum Mining2A2: A-Life2A2: A-Life2A2: A-Life2A2: Type-II Civilization2A2: Sun Will Explode2A2: Sun Will Explode Article (Written by a, and Posted on, Yahoo)22NC Tech Ban CP Solvency2**Aliens**2No Aliens General2No Aliens General2No Aliens General2No Aliens General2No Aliens Earthlike/Life conditions Rare2No Aliens Earthlike/Life Conditions Rare2No Aliens No Evidence (Fermis Paradox)2No Aliens No Evidence (Fermis Paradox)Error! Bookmark not defined.No Aliens A2: Their Evidence Wouldnt Be Noticible2No Aliens A2: You Anthropomorphize2No Aliens A2: Were A Zoo2No Aliens A2: They Hang Out In Interesting Parts Of The Galaxy2No Aliens A2: They Kill Themselves2

**Wipeout Frontline**

Wipeout Frontline1. If extra-terrestrials do exist, they are either not benevolent or not nearbyMatheny, 07 (Jason G., Special Advisor Center for Biosecurity, Ought We Worry About Human Extinction?, 12-6, http://jgmatheny.org/extinctionethics.htm)The same can be said of sentient extraterrestrials, who, it might be hoped, exist or will exist. Even if we did not care about preserving terrestrial life, the absence of apparent extraterrestrial signals or colonies should worry us. The conditions necessary for supporting sentient life may be highly restrictive, making such life a rare phenomenon in the galaxy (Mayr, 1995; Ward and Brownlee, 2000). It is possible that humanity is at the leading edge of technology in our region of space. If so, we should not assume sentient life elsewhere will develop a civilization capable of space colonization. Extraterrestrials may be overwhelmed by their own evolutionary hurdles or extinction risks. If we are not at the leading edge, and there are extraterrestrials more advanced than we are, then they are probably either not benevolent or not nearby. Otherwise, it is hard to fathom why they havent intervened (overtly or covertly) in Earths affairs to prevent the mass of suffering on this planet. The presence of preventable misery here militates against the existence of an advanced, benevolent, and nearby extraterrestrial, as it militates against the existence of a powerful and benevolent god. If a benevolent, advanced extraterrestrial civilization exists, then it is probably distant. We would waste some fraction of remaining starlight if we waited for them to reach this region of space. We ought to prevent human extinction, then, if only to decrease the opportunity costs caused by entropy (Bostrom, 2003).

2. Destruction of the universe is inevitable its rapid expansion is unsustainableOverbye, 02 (Dennis, New York Times, The Universe Might Last Forever, Astronomers Say, but Life Might Not January 1, http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/01ENDrev.html)Now, however, even Dr. Dyson admits that all bets are off. If recent astronomical observations are correct, the future of life and the universe will be far bleaker. In the last four years astronomers have reported evidence that the expansion of the universe is not just continuing but is speeding up, under the influence of a mysterious "dark energy," an antigravity that seems to be embedded in space itself. If that is true and the universe goes on accelerating, astronomers say, rather than coasting gently into the night, distant galaxies will eventually be moving apart so quickly that they cannot communicate with one another. In effect, it would be like living in the middle of a black hole that kept getting emptier and colder. In such a universe, some physicists say, the usual methods of formulating physics may not all apply. Instead of new worlds coming into view, old ones would constantly be disappearing over the horizon, lost from view forever. Cosmological knowledge would be fragmented, with different observers doomed to seeing different pieces of the puzzle and no single observer able to know the fate of the whole universe or arrive at a theory of physics that was more than approximate. "There would be a lot of things about the universe that we simply couldn't predict," said Dr. Thomas Banks, a physicist at the University of California at Santa Cruz. And perhaps most important, starved finally of the energy even to complete a thought or a computation, the domain of life and intelligence would not expand, but constrict and eventually vanish like a dwindling echo into the silence of eternity. "I find the fate of a universe that is accelerating forever not very appealing," said Dr. Edward Witten, a theorist at the Institute for Advanced Study. That is an understatement, in the view of Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, an astrophysicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, who along with his colleague Dr. Glenn D. Starkman has recently tried to limn the possibilities of the far future. An accelerating universe "would be the worst possible universe, both for the quality and quantity of life," Dr. Krauss said, adding: "All our knowledge, civilization and culture are destined to be forgotten. There's no long-term future."

3. No impact there are an infinite number of universes. The destruction of one is not significant.Chaikin, 2002 (Andrew, Editor of Space and Science, Space.com, Are there other universes? February 5, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/5mysteries_universes_020205-1.html)The irresistible, mind-boggling fantasy comes to just about everyone, sooner or later: What if everything we knew, our whole universe, was just a speck of dust on someone's shoulder? Of course, that's not an idea astronomers take seriously. But many cosmologists are giving serious thought to a more scientific question: Do other universes exist? At first glance, you can't help but wonder how anyone could have the chutzpah to ask a question like that. We can barely figure out this universe, and now we're wondering about others? Believe it or not, theorists have an answer. And the answer appears to be, Yes. As unimaginable as that sounds, it comes straight out of the theory of quantum mechanics, a set of mathematical rules that describe how the universe works on the smallest scales, inside atoms. Quantum mechanics says that matter and energy can appear spontaneously out of the vacuum of space, thanks to something called a quantum fluctuation, a sort of hiccup in the energy field thought to pervade the cosmos. Cosmologists say that a quantum fluctuation gave rise to the Big Bang. And the thing about quantum fluctuations is that they can happen anywhere, any time. And if our universe was born out of a quantum fluctuation, say theorists, then it's possible that other quantum fluctuations could have spawned other universes. There's a reason some theorists want other universes to exist: They believe it's the only way to explain why our own universe, whose physical laws are just right to allow life, happens to exist. According to the so-called anthropic principle, there are perhaps an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws. And one of them happens to be ours. That's much easier to believe, say the anthropic advocates, than a single universe "fine-tuned" for our existence. 4. If humans are about to engage in practices that have the potential to destroy the universe, aliens will interveneTough, 86 (Allen, Ph.D. University of Toronto, What Role Will Extraterrestrials Play In Humanity's Future? http://www.ieti.org/articles/1986.htm)In this section we will discuss instant protection, which is often an early-stage type of help. If a human toddler is about to run on to a busy street or fall into a campfire, we instantly grab the child. Explanations and education can wait for a moment! Similarly, if a promising civilization is about to trigger a nuclear holocaust or collide with a giant asteroid, a team of extraterrestrials may take instant action to avoid the catastrophe. Such extraterrestrials would unobtrusively monitor the civilization and act only if needed, probably extremely rarely. They would continue providing instant protection until it is no longer needed, either because severe dangers no longer exist or because the civilization becomes able to cope on its own. Putting into place the means for instant protection will often be the first and moat common type of help provided to fledgling and promising civilizations. If an all-out nuclear war were suddenly about to begin here, for instance, the team of extraterrestrial engineers assigned to Earth would take instant action. Having been monitoring each nation's code signal for banning a nuclear attack, they might jam those signals or immediately issue the countermand ("I changed my mind") code. World leaders would thus find themselves unable to launch their missiles. Alternatively, extraterrestrials with highly developed psychic capacities could probably avoid the launch by monitoring the mental processes of the key world leaders and then directly influencing their minds just before they would otherwise order the missiles launched. A third possible method is to defuse the missiles in flight or have their navigation systems send them far away from the planet. If all of this sounds too far-fetched for you to accept, ask yourself how your great-grandparents (when they were your age) would have reacted to today's actual nuclear, navigational, espionage, and space capabilities! If measures for instant protection were in place, they would certainly be used to prevent the extinction of a promising fledgling civilization. The data concerning a "nuclear winter" on Earth indicate that even one-fifth of our present nuclear weapons could possibly eliminate humankind completely within a year after detonation. The extraterrestrial team might, or might not, take action if they predicted that at least a handful of human beings and some basic knowledge would survive. "Our compassion is very long-term," said one extraterrestrial at the mock meetings. "We care about the ultimate destination of humanity, but we do not want to interfere with their present journey unless they are about to eliminate all human life and culture." 5. Avoiding nuclear war is crucial for a transition to a Type I civilizationKaku, 04 (Michio, Prof. Theoretical Physics @ City College New York, Parallel Universes, p. 360-361)Our grandchildren, however, will live at the dawning of Earth's first planetary civilization. If we don't allow our often brutal instinct for self-destruction to consume us, our grandchildren could live in an age when want, hunger, and disease no longer haunt our destiny. For the first time in human history, we possess both the means for destroying all life on Earth or realizing a paradise on the planet. As a child, I often wondered what it would be like to live in the far future. Today, I believe that if I could choose to be alive in any particular era of humanity, I would choose this one. We are now at the most exciting time in human history, the cusp of some of the greatest cosmic discoveries and technological advances of all time. [end page 360] nature, with the ability to manipulate life, matter, and intelligence. With this awesome power, however, comes great responsibility, to ensure that the fruits of our efforts are used wisely and for the benefit of all humanity. The generation now alive is perhaps the most important generation of humans ever to walk the Earth. Unlike previous generations, we hold in our hands the future destiny of our species, whether we soar into fulfilling our promise as a type I civilization or fall into the abyss of chaos, pollution, and war. Decisions made by us will reverberate throughout this century. How we resolve global wars, proliferating nuclear weapons, and sectarian and ethnic strife will either lay or destroy the foundations of a type I civilization. Perhaps the purpose and meaning of the current generation are to make sure that the transition to a type I civilization is a smooth one.6. Thats key to rip the worm-hole and avoid the big freezeKaku 04 (Michio, Prof. Theoretical Physics @ City College New York, Discover, How to Survive the End of the Universe, 12-3, http://discovermagazine.com/2004/dec/survive-end-of-universe)To journey safely from this universe to anotherto investigate the various options and do some trial runsan advanced civilization will need to be able to harness energy on a scale that dwarfs anything imaginable by todays standards. To grasp the challenge, consider a schema introduced in the 1960s by Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev that classified civilizations according to their energy consumption. According to his definition, a Type I civilization is planetary: It is able to exploit all the energy falling on its planet from the sun (1016 watts). This civilization could derive limitless hydrogen from the oceans, perhaps harness the power of volcanoes, and maybe even control the weather. A Type II civilization could control the energy output of the sun itself: 1026 watts, or 10 billion times the power of a Type I civilization. Deriving energy from solar flares and antimatter, Type IIs would be effectively immune to ice ages, meteors, even supernovas. A Type III civilization would be 10 billion times more powerful still, capable of controlling and consuming the output of an entire galaxy (1036 watts). Type IIIs would derive energy by extracting it from billions of stars and black holes. A Type III civilization would be able to manipulate the Planck energy (1019 billion electron volts), the energy at which space-time becomes foamy and unstable, frothing with tiny wormholes and bubble-size universes. The aliens in Independence Day would qualify as a Type III civilization. By contrast, ours would qualify as a Type 0 civilization, deriving its energy from dead plantsoil and coal. But we could evolve rapidly. A civilization like ours growing at a modest 1 to 2 percent per year could make the leap to a Type I civilization in a century or so, to a Type II in a few thousand years, and to a Type III in a hundred thousand to a million years. In that time frame, a Type III civilization could colonize the entire galaxy, even if their rockets traveled at less than the speed of light. With the inevitable Big Freeze at least tens of billions of years away, a Type III civilization would have plenty of time to develop and test an escape plan.

7. As policymakers, we must prioritize the fate of humanity any risk of nuclear war shatters the frame of existence and should be rejected as a decision ruleSchell 82, (Jonathan ,journalist, FATE OF THE EARTH, 1982, p. 184.)The death of our species resembles the death of an individual in its boundlessness, its blankness, its removal beyond experience, and its tendency to baffle human thought and feeling, yet as soon as one mentions the hope of survival the similarities are clearly at an end. For while individual death is inevitable, extinction can be avoided; while every person must die, mankind can be saved. Therefore, while reflection on death may lead to resignation and acceptance, reflection on extinction must lead to exactly the opposite response: to arousal, rejection, indignation, and action. Extinction is not something to contemplate, it is something to rebel against. To point this out might seem like stating the obvious if it were not that one the whole the worlds reaction to the peril of extinction has been one of numbness and inertia, much as though extinction were as inescapable as death is. Even today, the official response to the sickening reality before us is conditioned by a grim fatalism, in which the hope of ridding the world of nuclear weapons, and thus of surviving as a species, is all but ruled out of consideration as utopian or extreme as though it were radical merely to want to go on living and to want ones descendants to be born. And yet if one gives up these aspirations one has given up on everything. As a species, we have as yet done nothing to save ourselves. The slate of action is blank. We have organizations for the preservation of almost everything in life that we want but no organization for the preservation of mankind. People seem to have decided that our collective will is too weak or flawed to rise to this occasion. They see the violence that has saturated human history, and conclude that to practice violence is innate in our species. They find the perennial hope that peace can be brought to the earth once and for all a delusion of the well-meaning who have refused to face the harsh realities of international life the realities of self-interest, fear, hatred, and aggression. They have concluded that these realities are eternal ones, and this conclusion defeats at the outset any hope of taking the actions necessary for survival. Looking at the historical record, they ask what has changed to give anyone confidence that humanity can break with its violent past and act with greater restraint. The answer of course, is that everything has changed. To the old harsh realities of international life has been added the immeasurably harsher new reality of the peril of extinction. To the old truth that all men are brothers has been added the inescapable new truth that not only on the moral but also on the physical plane the nation that practices aggression will itself die. This is the law of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence the doctrine of mutual assured destruction which assures the destruction of the society of the attacker. And it is also the law of the natural world, which, in its own version of deterrence, supplements the oneness of mankind with a oneness of nature, and guarantees that when the attack rises above a certain level the attacker will be engulfed in the general ruin of the global ecosphere. To the obligation to honor life is now added the sanction that if we fail in our obligation life will actually be taken away from us, individually and collectively. Each of us will die, and as we die we will see the world around us dying. Such imponderables as the sum of human life, the integrity of the terrestrial creation, and the meaning of time, of history, and of the development of life on earth, which were once left to contemplation and spiritual understanding, are now at stake in the political realm and demand a political response from every person. As political actors, we must, like the contemplatives before us, delve to the bottom of the world, and, Atlas-like, we must take the world on our shoulders.

Ext Universe Destruction Inevitable

Life could not survive in a cooling, expanding universe even if it could, life would be meaninglessOverbye, 2002 (Dennis, New York Times, The Universe Might Last Forever, Astronomers Say, but Life Might Not January 1, http://krauss.faculty.asu.edu/01ENDrev.html)Dr. Dyson argued in his 1979 paper that life and intelligence could survive the desert of darkness and cold in a universe that was expanding infinitely but ever more slowly by adopting ever slower and cooler forms of existence. Intelligence, could reside, for example, in the pattern of electrically charged dust grains in an interstellar cloud, a situation described in the 1957 science fiction novel "The Black Cloud," by the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who died in August. As an organism like the black cloud cooled, he argued, it would think more slowly, but it would always metabolize energy even more slowly, so its appetite would always be less than its output. In fact, Dr. Dyson concluded, by making the amount of energy expended per thought smaller and smaller the cloud could have an infinite number of thoughts while consuming only a finite amount of energy. But there was a hitch. Even just thinking requires energy and generates heat, which is why computers have fans. Dr. Dyson suggested that creatures would have to stop thinking and hibernate periodically to radiate away their heat. In an accelerating universe, however, there is an additional source of heat that cannot be gotten rid of. The same calculations that predict black holes should explode also predict that in an accelerating universe space should be filled with so-called Hawking radiation. In effect, the horizon the farthest distance we can see looks mathematically like the surface of a black hole. The amount of this radiation is expected to be incredibly small corresponding to a fraction of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a degree above absolute zero, but that is enough to doom sentient life. "The Hawking radiation kills us because it gives a minimum temperature below which you cannot cool anything," said Dr. Krauss. Once an organism cools to that temperature, he explained, it would dissipate energy at some fixed rate. "Since there is a finite total energy, this means a finite lifetime." Infinity on Trial Although Dr. Dyson agrees with this gloomy view of life in an accelerating universe, he and Dr. Krauss and Dr. Starkman are still arguing about whether life is also doomed in a universe that is not accelerating, but just expanding and getting slower and colder. Quantum theory, the Case Western authors point out, limits how finely the energy for new thoughts can be shaved. The theory decrees that energy is emitted and absorbed in tiny indivisible lumps called "quanta." Any computation must spend at least this much energy out of a limited supply. Each new thought is a step down an energy ladder with a finite number of steps. "So you can only have a finite number of thoughts," said Dr. Krauss. "If you want to stare at your navel and not think any new thoughts, you won't dissipate energy, " he explained. But that would be a boring way to spend eternity. If life is to involve more than the eternal reshuffling of the same data, he and Dr. Starkman say, it cannot be eternal. Dr. Dyson, however, says this argument applies only to so-called digital life, in which there is a fixed number of quantum states. Creatures like the black cloud, which could grow along with the universe, he said, would have an increasing number of quantum states, and so there would always be more rungs of the ladder to step down. So the bottom need never be reached and life and thought could go on indefinitely. But nobody knows whether such a life form can exist, said Dr. Krauss.

Aliens will intervene on earth in order to prevent long term problems that could result in extinctionTouch 86 - Tough, 1986 (Allen, Ph.D. University of Toronto, What Role Will Extraterrestrials Play In Humanity's Future? http://www.ieti.org/articles/1986.htm)Helping us reduce (over time) our worst risks and dangers is a second type of potential help. In the childhood analogy, we might build a fence or gate so that the child cannot reach the busy street or we might teach the child to stay off the road. Extraterrestrials are very likely to provide this type of help when they cannot handle a future danger cheaply and easily through instant protection. They also may provide it when the civilization becomes mature enough to accept and implement extraterrestrial suggestions. As human youngsters: mature, for example, we gradually help them gain more and more of the knowledge, skill, and responsibility necessary for independent safety. There is less and less need for our constant monitoring, our alert readiness to intervene, and our efforts to safely "child-proof" their home. Three sorts of approaches might be used to help us, over time, reduce our worst risks and dangers: 1. Advanced extraterrestrials may perform some invisible action: behind the scenes in order to eliminate certain risks. Human beings might be unaware that extraterrestrials were influencing certain events, phenomena, miracles, objects, widespread beliefs and feelings, or key decisions of world leaders. We might not notice if they rendered inoperable the detonation or navigation system of every nuclear weapon at the time of its installation. We might not realize why our experiments to develop one particularly deadly agent for biological warfare always seemed to fail. We might not know that a giant asteroid or comet abruptly changed course long before astronomers realized that it was on a collision course with Earth. Highly advanced beings could produce these various sorts of influence in several ways: electronically from a great distance, directly through their presence here in our Solar System, or indirectly by changing the minds or behaviour of certain key individuals.

Ext Infinite UniversesThere are an infinate number of universes this mitigates their impact.Rees, 1995 (John, astrophysicist and cosmologist; Royal Society Research Professor at King's College, Cambridge, "An Ensemble of Universes" http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/x-Ch.15.htmlI'm also trying to bring into a scientific context the concept of an ensemble of universes, each with different properties. These ideas are associated with many people, but I'll mention only the Russian physicist Andrei Linde, who proposes chaotic and eternal inflation that is, the idea that new universes can sprout from old ones, or can inflate into a new domain of spacetime inside black holes. He and others have argued that our universe is just one element in an infinite ensemble. Different universes in this ensemble may be governed by entirely different physical laws, numbers, and dimensions. Some may have very strong gravitational force, some may have no gravity, some may have different kinds of particles. If that's a possibility, then this concept of an ensemble, which I prefer to call a meta- universe, gives a scientific basis to anthropic reasoning the idea that it's not a coincidence that we find ourselves in a universe where conditions are somehow attuned for the development of complexity. If all possible universes governed by all possible laws exist, then obviously it occasions no surprise that some of them will have laws of nature that allow complexity, and then it's no coincidence and, indeed, inevitable that a universe like ours exists, and, of course, that's the one we're in. This suggests the idea of "observational selection," as it were, of universes. I take this seriously. There's an ensemble of universes. Insofar as one can put a "measure" in the mathematical sense on relative numbers of universes, most will be stillborn, in the sense that there would be no complexity evolving within them. Some, contrariwise, may have vastly greater potentialities than our own, but these are obviously beyond our imaginings.

Ext Heat Death K/T Value to LifeKey to value to lifeSan Francisco Chronicle in 04 (Keay Davidson, Science Writer, Physicists mull year's top events: Institute's list of most significant developments draws debate, December 6, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/12/06/MNGP3A72PB1.DTL)This year's apparent confirmation of the accelerating-universe hypothesis thrilled the noted physicist-author Michio Kaku of City University of New York. "What has excited me personally about the top stories of 2004 was confirmation that the universe is accelerating, a staggering discovery that has deep philosophical and even theological implications," Kaku said by e-mail. "When it was first announced a few years ago that the universe was not just expanding, but actually accelerating, in a runaway mode, the world of physics was agog, with mouths hanging open, but die-hard skeptics demanded more confirmation. How could the universe be careening out of control? ... "This has philosophical implications, because it means that the universe is dying, and eventually the Big Freeze will kill off all intelligent life forms. This has theological implications, because what is the meaning of life if all life is doomed to freeze by the laws of physics? What kind of deity would allow life, in all its glory, to flower in the universe, and then snuff it out cruelly by freezing it to death? "Personally, I believe that the only hope for intelligent life to escape the death of the universe is to leave the universe itself. ... If our universe one day becomes too cold to support life, then perhaps we will be forced to harness the most advanced physics to open up a hole in space, travel between dimensions, to a much younger, warming universe."

Ext Heat Death Links - Technology

Technological advancement is key to Type II and III civilizations only they can create inter-universal wormholes to escape at the end of the universeSlate.com in 04 (Jim Holt, How Will The Universe End? March 4, http://www.slate.com/id/2143403/entry/2096507/)

Tipler's idea of an infinite frolic just before the Big Crunch was seductive to memore so, at least, than Dyson's vision of a community of increasingly dilute Black Clouds staving off the cold in an eternal Big Chill. But if the universe is in a runaway expansion, both are pipe dreams. The only way to survive in the long run is to get the hell out. Yet how do you escape a dying universe ifas little Alvy Singer pointed outthe universe is everything? A man who claims to see an answer to this question is Michio Kaku. A theoretical physicist at City College in New York, Kaku looks and talks a bit like the character Sulu on Star Trek. (He can be seen in the recent Michael Apted film about great scientists, Me and Isaac Newton.) He is not the least bit worried about the fate of this universe. "If your ship is sinking," he said to me, "why not get a lifeboat and leave?" We earthlings can't do this just yet, Kaku observed. That is because we are a mere Type 1 civilization, able to marshal the energy only of a single planet. But eventually, assuming a reasonable rate of economic growth and technological progress, we will graduate to being a Type 2 civilization, commanding the energy of a star, and thence to being a Type 3 civilization, able to summon the energy of an entire galaxy. Then space-time itself will be our plaything. We'll have the power to open up a "wormhole" through which we can slip into a brand new universe. "Of course," Kaku added, "it may take as long as 100,000 years for such a Type 3 civilization to develop, but the universe won't start getting really cold for trillions of years." There is one other thing that the beings in such a civilization will need, Kaku stressed to me: a unified theory of physics, one that would show them how to stabilize the wormhole so it doesn't disappear before they can make their escape. The closest thing we have to that now, superstring theory, is so difficult that no one (with the possible exception of Ed Witten) knows how to get it to work. Kaku wasn't the least bit gloomy that the universe might be dying. "In fact," he said, "I'm in a state of exhilaration, because this would force us, really force us, to crack superstring theory. People say, 'What has superstring theory done for me lately? Has it given me better cable TV reception?' What I tell them is that superstring theoryor whatever the final, unified theory of physics turns out to becould be our one and only hope for surviving the death of this universe."

Humongous atom smashers are necessary to achieve plank energy and open a wormholeKaku in 4 (Michio, Prof. Theoretical Physics @ City College New York, Parallel Universes, p. 330-332)How can we build a machine capable of leaving our universe, given unlimited access to high technology? At what point can we hope to harness the power of the Planck energy? By the time a civilization has attained type III status, it already has the power to manipulate the Planck energy, by definition. Scientists would be able to play with wormholes and assemble enough energy to open holes in space and time. There are several ways in which this might be done by an advanced civilization. As I mentioned earlier, our universe may be a membrane with a parallel universe just a millimeter from ours, floating in hyperspace. If so, then the Large Hadron Collider may detect it within the next several years. By the time we advance to a type I civilization, we might even have the technology to explore the nature of this neighboring universe. So the concept of making contact with a parallel universe may not be such a farfetched idea. But let us assume the worst case, that the energy at which quantum gravitational effects arise is the Planck energy, which is a quadrillion times greater than the energy of the LHC. To explore the Planck energy, a type III civilization would have to create an atom smasher of stellar proportions. In atom smashers, or particle accelerators, subatomic particles travel down a narrow tube. As energy is injected into the tubing, the particles are accelerated to high energies. If we use huge magnets to bend the particles' path into a large [end page 330] circle, then particles can be accelerated to trillions of electron volts of energy. The greater the radius of the circle, the greater the energy of the beam. The LHe has a diameter of 27 kilometers, which is pushing the limit of the energy available to a type 0.7 civilization. But for a type III civilization, the possibility opens up of making an atom smasher the size of a solar system or even a star system. It is conceivable that an advanced civilization might fire a beam of subatomic particles into outer space and accelerate them to the Planck energy. As we recall, with the new generation of laser particle accelerators, within a few decades physicists might be able to create a tabletop accelerator capable of achieving 200 GeV (200 billion electron volts) over a distance of a meter. By stacking these tabletop accelerators one after the other, it is conceivable that one could attain energies at which space-time becomes unstable. If we assume that future accelerators can boost particles only by 200 GeV per meter, which is a conservative assumption, we would need a particle accelerator 10 light-years long to reach the Planck energy. Although this is prohibitively large for any type I or II civilization, it is well within the ability of a type III civilization. To build such a gargantuan atom smasher, a type III civilization might either bend the path of the beam into a circle, thereby saving considerable space, or leave the path stretched out in a line that extends well past the nearest star.

Ext Wormholes Solve Heat Death

Wormholes can be used to escape our universeKaku in 4 (Michio, Prof. Theoretical Physics @ City College New York, Parallel Universes, p. 305-307)The eventual disintegration of our universe into a lifeless mist of [end page 305] electrons, neutrinos, and photons seems to foretell the ultimate doom of all intelligent life. On a cosmic scale, we see how fragile and transitory life is. The era when life is able to flourish is concentrated in a very narrow band, a fleeting period in the life of the stars that light up the night sky. It seems impossible for life to continue as the universe ages and cools. The laws of physics and thermodynamics are quite clear: if the expansion of the universe continues to accelerate in a runaway mode, intelligence as we know it cannot ultimately survive. But as the temperature of the universe continues to drop over the theory is so crucially dependent on the creation of the false vacuum, Guth has wondered if some advanced eons, can an advanced civilization try to save itself? By marshaling all its technology, and the technology of any other civilizations that may exist in the universe, can it escape the inevitability of the big freeze? Because the rate at which the stages of the universe evolve is measured in billions to trillions of years, there is plenty of time for an industrious, clever civilization to attempt to meet these challenges. Although it is sheer speculation to imagine what kinds of technologies an advanced civilization may devise to prolong its existence, one can use the known laws of physics to discuss the broad options that may be available to them billions of years from now. Physics cannot tell us what specific plans an advanced civilization may adopt, but it might tell us what the range of parameters are for such an escape. To an engineer, the main problem in leaving the universe is whether we have sufficient resources to build a machine that can perform such a difficult feat. But to a physicist, the main problem is different: whether the laws of physics allow for the existence of these machines in the first place. Physicists want a "proof of principle" -we want to show that, if you had sufficiently advanced technology, an escape into another universe would be possible according to the laws of physics. Whether we have sufficient resources is a lesser, practical detail that has to be left for civilizations billions of years in the future that are facing the big freeze. According to Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, "Wormholes, extra dimensions, and quantum computers open up speculative scenarios [end page 306] that could transform our entire universe eventually into a living cosmos.

Humans in the future can use lasers to create baby universes and escape heat deathKaku in 4 (Michio, Prof. Theoretical Physics @ City College New York, Parallel Universes, p. 327-330)

So far, we have assumed that it might be possible to pass through a black hole. Now let's assume the reverse, that black holes are too unstable and too full of lethal radiation. One might then try an even more difficult path: to create a baby universe. The concept of an advanced civilization creating an escape hatch to another universe has intrigued physicists like Alan Guth. Because the inflationary civilization might artificially create a false vacuum and create a baby universe in the laboratory. At first, the idea of creating a universe seems preposterous. After all, as Guth points out, to create our universe, you would need 1089 photons, 1089 electrons, 1089 positrons, 1089 neutrinos, 1089 antineutrinos, 1089 protons, and 1089 neutrons. While this task sounds daunting, Guth reminds us that although the matter/energy content of a universe is quite large, it is balanced by the negative energy derived from gravitation. The total net matter/energy may be as little as an ounce. Guth cautions, "Does this mean that the laws of physics truly enable us to create a new universe at will? If we tried to carry out this recipe, unfortunately, we would immediately encounter an annoying snag: since a sphere of false vacuum 10-26 centimeters across has a mass of one ounce, its density is a phenomenal 1080 grams per cubic centimeter! ... If the mass of the entire observed universe were compressed to false-vacuum density, it would fit in a volume smaller than an atom!" The false vacuum would be the tiny region of space-time where an instability arises and a rift occurs in spacetime. It may only take a few ounces of matter within the false vacuum to create a baby universe, but this tiny amount of matter has to be compressed down to an astronomically small distance. [end page 327] There may be still another way to create a baby universe. One might heat up a small region of space to 1029 degrees K, and then rapidly cool it down. At this temperature, it is conjectured that spacetime becomes unstable; tiny bubble-universes would begin to form, and a false vacuum might be created. These tiny baby universes, which form all the time but are short-lived, may become real universes at that temperature. This phenomenon is already familiar with ordinary electric fields. (For example, if we create a large enough electric field, the virtual electron-anti electron pairs that constantly pop out in and out of the vacuum can suddenly become real, allowing these particles to spring into existence. Thus, concentrated energy in empty space can transform virtual particles into real ones. Similarly, if we apply enough energy at a single point, it is theorized that virtual baby universes may spring into existence, appearing out of nowhere.) Assuming that such an unimaginable density or temperature can be achieved, the formation of a baby universe might look as follows. In our universe, powerful laser beams and particle beams may be used to compress and heat a tiny amount of matter to fantastic energies and temperatures. We would never see the baby universe as it begins to form, since it expands on the "other side" of the singularity, rather than in our universe. This alternate baby universe would potentially inflate in hyperspace via its own antigravity force and "bud" off our universe. We will, therefore, never see a new universe is forming on the other side of the singularity. But a wormhole would, like an umbilical cord, connect us with the baby universe.Ext Heat Death Coming Now

The expansion of the universe is being driven by escalating antigravity forces and will destroy all lifeKaku in 4 (Michio, Prof. Theoretical Physics @ City College New York, Parallel Universes, p. 288-289)Scientists, facing the cold laws of physics, must now confront similar themes. Hard data, rather than mythology whispered around campfires, dictates how scientists view the final end of the universe. But similar themes may prevail in the scientific world. Among the solutions of Einstein's equations we also see possible futures involving freezing cold, fire, catastrophe, and an end to the universe. But will there be a final rebirth? According to the picture emerging from the WMAP satellite, a mysterious antigravity force is accelerating the expansion of the universe. If it continues for billions or trillions of years, the universe will inevitably reach a big freeze similar to the blizzard foretelling the twilight of the gods, ending all life as we know it. This antigravity force pushing the universe apart is proportional to the volume of the universe. Thus, the larger the universe becomes, the more antigravity there is to push the galaxies apart, which in turn increases the volume of the universe. This vicious cycle repeats itself endlessly, until the universe enters a runaway mode and grows exponentially fast. Eventually, this will mean that thirty-six galaxies in the local group of galaxies will make up the entire visible universe, as billions of neighboring galaxies speed past our event horizon. With the space between galaxies expanding faster than the speed of light, l the universe will become terribly lonely. Temperatures will plunge, as the remaining energy is spread thinner and thinner across space. As temperatures drop to near absolute zero, intelligent species will have to face their ultimate fate: freezing to death.

Ext Wormholes Solve Extinction

Our last hope will be to send nanotechnology through a wormhole to recreate civilization in a different universeKaku in 4 (Michio, Prof. Theoretical Physics @ City College New York, Parallel Universes, p. 338-341)As Stephen Hawking has said, "It seems ... that quantum theory allows time travel on a microscopic basis." If Hawking is right, members of an advanced civilization could decide to alter their physical being into something that would survive the arduous journey back in time or to another universe, merging carbon with silicon and reducing their consciousness down to pure information. In the final analysis, our carbon-based bodies may well be too fragile to endure the physical hardship of a journey of this magnitude. Far in the future, we may be able to merge our consciousness with our robot creations, using advanced DNA engineering, nanotechnology, and [end page 339] robotics. This may sound bizarre by today's standards, but a civilization billions to trillions of years in the future might find it the only way to survive. They might need to merge their brains and personalities directly into machines. This could be done in several ways. One could create a sophisticated software program that was able to duplicate all our thinking processes, so that it had a personality identical to ours. More ambitious is the program advocated by Hans Moravec of Carnegie-Mellon University. He claims that, in the far future, we may be able to reproduce, neuron for neuron, the architecture of our brains onto silicon transistors. Each neural connection in the brain would be replaced by a corresponding transistor that would duplicate the neuron's function inside a robot. Because the tidal forces and radiation fields would likely be intense, future civilizations would have to carry the absolute minimum of fuel, shielding, and nutrients necessary to re-create our species on the other side of a wormhole. Using nanotechnology, it might be possible to send microscopic chains across the wormhole inside a device no wider than a cell. If the wormhole was very small, on the scale of an atom, scientists would have to send large nanotubes made of individual atoms, encoded with vast quantities of information sufficient to re-create the entire species on the other side. If the wormhole was only the size of a subatomic particle, scientists would have to devise a way to send nuclei across the wormhole that would grab electrons on the other side and reconstruct themselves into atoms and molecules. If a wormhole was even smaller than that, perhaps laser beams made of X rays or gamma rays of small wavelength could be used to send sophisticated codes through the wormhole, giving instructions on how to reconstruct civilization on the other side. The goal of such a transmission would be to construct a microscopic "nanobot" on the other side of the wormhole, whose mission would be to find a suitable environment in which to regenerate our civilization. Because it would be constructed on an atomic scale, it would not need huge booster rockets or a large amount of fuel to find a suitable planet. In fact, it could effortlessly approach light-speed [end page 340] because it is relatively easy to send subatomic particles to near lightspeed using electric fields. Also, it would not need life support or other clumsy pieces of hardware, since the main content of the nanobot is the pure information necessary to regenerate the race. Once the nanobot had found a new planet, it would create a large factory using the raw materials already available on the planet to build many replicas of itself and make a large cloning laboratory. The necessary DNA sequences could be produced in this laboratory and then injected into cells to begin the process of regenerating whole organisms and eventually the entire species. These cells in the lab would then be grown into fully adult beings, with the memory and personality of the original human placed into the brain.

Ext Heat Death Extinction

Heat death is coming and will destroy everything

irkovi, 02 (Milan M., astrophysicist, FORECAST FOR THE NEXT EON: APPLIED COSMOLOGY AND THE LONG-TERM FATE OF INTELLIGENT BEINGS, accessed using OAlster on 07-20-08)The outlook this paradigm suggests for the future is rather bleak. Universe will not only expand forever, but will do so at ever-increasing speed. Gravitationally bound structures, such as galaxies, galaxy clusters and superclusters will become more and more isolated in the future. As noticed by several investigators (Rindler 1956; Krauss and Starkman 2000; irkovi and Bostrom 2001), cosmological constant acts to create an event horizon, i.e. closed surface across which communication is impossible at all times. This effectively means that any perturbation larger the size of horizon cannot affect us. On the other hand, the inexorable rise of entropy will degrade matter configurations in each of the regions forever surrounded by event horizons, and the state very close to the classically imagined heat-death (e.g. Eddington 1931) will ensue. The processes of star-formation and stellar nucleosynthesis, at present the major sources of entropy production, will cease, and the remaining stellar remnants will be slowly degraded by proton decay and gravitational collapse. Even black holes will inevitably evaporate on tremendously long timescales through the Hawking evaporation. Finally, nothing will remain except the incredibly redshifted thermal photons of wavelengths comparable to the horizonsize, since even the remaining not annihilated electrons and positrons will be separated by distances far surpassing the horizon size.

A2: Heat Death Wont Happen

Even if we dont win heat death will occur an oscillating universe makes extinction inevitable

Kaku in 4 (Michio, Prof. Theoretical Physics @ City College New York, Parallel Universes, p.290-291)Some cosmologists have tried to evade this "heat death" by appealing to an oscillating universe. Entropy would increase continually as the universe expanded and eventually contracted. But after the big crunch, it is not clear what would become of the entropy in the universe. Some have entertained the idea that perhaps the universe might simply repeat itself exactly in the next cycle. More realistic is the possibility that the entropy would be carried over to the next cycle, which means that the lifetime of the universe would gradually lengthen for each cycle. But no matter how one looks at the question, the oscillating universe, like the open and closed universes, will eventually result in the destruction of all intelligent life.

A2: Wormholes Not Feasible

Traversable wormholes in spacetime could be constructed in the foreseeable futureWoodward, 97 (James F., professor at California State University, TWISTS OF FATE: CAN WE MAKE TRAVERSABLE WORMHOLES IN SPACETIME?, Foundations of Physics Letters, Accessed using SpringerLink on 07-20-08)

How seriously should you take the methods of wormhole production sketched here? Well, there is no "new physics" in any of the foregoing other than possibly the proposition that inertial reaction forces are produced by a field interaction that is, that Mach's principle obtains. The relativity of inertia (Mach's principle), however, is widely thought to be true. And experiments show that at least one of the transient source terms that appears in the field equation derived in Sec. 3 exists in fact. There, I think, is the appropriate seriousness criterion: tangible, corroborable, physical evidence. And since such does not yet exist for REM per se, you may not want take all this too seriously. At least until convincing evidence for the production of REM is forthcoming. It may be that TWISTs are physically prohibited [11]. Or it may be that some effect catastrophic repulsive disruption mentioned above for example renders the methods discussed here unworkable in practice. Nonetheless, I think it prudent to point out that, although it is unlikely that some nutty professor will be able to make a TWIST in his/her garage without flubbing the attempt, the means necessary to carry through an investigation of this business are relatively modest (orders of magnitude less than the cost of, say, a state-of-the-art particle accelerator). A real prospect exists, therefore, that someone may actually succeed in making a TWIST in the foreseeable future. Unless caution in such an undertaking is exercised especially having an absolutely foolproof method for closing any TWIST made promptly serious consequences might ensue. Given the nature of our universe, the overwhelming probability is that the other mouth of a randomly generated TWIST would be formed in outer space. As a friend remarked when I mentioned this to him, this gives an entirely new meaning to Ross Perot's "sucking sound" remark about NAFTA [12]. Actions of breathtaking stupidity might be possible it would seem. Can we make a wormhole? I must admit that my sense of reasonableness is offended by TWISTs especially TWITs. Gut intuition (abetted by a little voice that keeps repeating J.B.S. Haldane's famous remark about reality [13]), however, tells me that with sufficiently clever engineering TWISTs may indeed be feasible. The essential physics of Star Trek may lie within our grasp [14]. So, perhaps in making a TWIT, eventually we will unveil the edge of spacetime (and in the process coax nature into revealing physical evidence of her big TOE) [15]. Surely, could we do that, that could be called a TWIST of fate.

Wormholes allow nearly instantaneous travel Woodward, 97 (James F., professor at California State University, TWISTS OF FATE: CAN WE MAKE TRAVERSABLE WORMHOLES IN SPACETIME?, Foundations of Physics Letters, Accessed using SpringerLink on 07-20-08)

Should a traversable wormhole be found it could be utilized in interstellar travel in the most obvious way. Suppose a traveler (say, Ellie from the above- mentioned novel) wants to y from the Earth to Vega. One could think that the trip (there and back) will take at least 52 years (by the terrestrial clocks) even if she moves at a nearly light speed. But if there is a wormhole connecting the vicinities of the Earth and Vega she can take a short-cut by ying through it and thus make the round trip to Vega in (almost) no time. Note, however, that such a use of a wormhole would have had nothing to do with circumventing the light barrier. Indeed, suppose that Ellies start to Vega is appointed on a moment t = 0. Our concern is with the time interval tE in which she will return to the Earth. Suppose that we know (from astronomical observations, theoretical calculations, etc.) that if in t = 0 she (instead of ying herself ) just emit a photon from the Earth, this photon after reaching Vega (and, say, reecting from it) will return back at best in a time interval tp . If we nd a wormhole from the Earth to Vega, it would only mean that tp actually is small, or in other words that Vega is actually far closer to the Earth than we think now. But what can be done if tp is large (one would hardly expect that traversable wormholes can be found for any star we would like to y to)? That is where the need in hyper-fast transport comes from. In other words, the problem of circumventing the light barrier (in connection with interstellar travel) lies in the question: how to reach a remote (i. e. with the large tp ) star and to return back sooner than a photon would have made it (i. e. in tE < tp )? It makes sense to call a spaceship faster-than-light (or hyper-fast ) if it solves this prolem. A possible way of creating hyperfast transport lies also in the use of traversable wormholes (Krasnikov, 1998). Suppose that a traveler nds (or builds) a traversable wormhole with both mouths located near the Earth and suppose that she can move the mouths (see Fig.1) at will without serious damage to the geometry of the tunnel (which we take to be negligibly short). Then she can y to Vega taking one of the mouths with her. Moving (almost) at the speed of light she will reach Vega (almost) instantaneously by her clocks. In doing so she rests with respect to the Earth insofar as the distance is measured through the wormhole. Therefore her clocks remain synchronous with those on the Earth as far as this fact is checked by experiments conned to the wormhole. So, if she return through the wormhole she will arrive back to the Earth almost immediately after she will have left it (with tE tp ).Baby universes will support lifeGardner, 07 (James, author and complexity theorist, The Intelligent Universe, Universe, April 4, http://www.urbanhonking.com/universe/archives/2007/04/interview_james.html, Accessed 07-23-08)

Yes, it is a central tenet of my hypothesis that our distant successors will be capable of seeding new baby universes and endowing them with cosmic DNA (i.e., a set of tightly constrained physical constants) that renders the Big Babies bio-friendly, so that the process of cosmic replication can continue indefinitely. An implication of the hypothesis is that our universe was created in the image (metaphorically speaking) of a predecessor universe that possessed that same or very similar cosmic DNA. And yes, all extraterrestrial life (if it exists) will have evolved on a common substrate (that cosmic DNA again) and thus will resemble us on some profound level.

***Wipeout Scenario Answers***A2: Prevents Destruction of Plant/Animal Life

Human life is key to preserving all life on earthMatheny 7 (Jason G., Special Advisor Center for Biosecurity, Ought We Worry About Human Extinction?, 12-6, http://jgmatheny.org/extinctionethics.htm)It was only in the last century, with the invention of nuclear weapons, that the probability of human extinction could be appreciably affected by human action. Ever since, human extinction has generally been considered a terrible possibility. Its surprising, then, that a search of JSTOR and the Philosophers Index suggests contemporary philosophers have written little about the ethics of human extinction. In fact, they seem to have written more about the extinction of other animals. Maybe this is because they consider human extinction impossible or inevitable; or maybe human extinction seems inconsequential compared to other moral issues. In this paper I argue that the possibility of human extinction deserves more attention. While extinction events may be very improbable, their consequences are grave. Human extinction would not only condemn to non-existence all future human generations, it would also cut short the existence of all animal life, as natural events will eventually make Earth uninhabitable.

Only humans have the capabilities to prevent asteroid collisions and preserve life on earthMatheny 7 (Jason G., Special Advisor Center for Biosecurity, Ought We Worry About Human Extinction?, 12-6, http://jgmatheny.org/extinctionethics.htm)Animal life has existed on Earth for around 500 million years. Barring a dramatic intervention, all animal life on Earth will die in the next several billion years. Earth is located in a field of thousands of asteroids and comets. 65 million years ago, an asteroid 10 kilometers in size hit the Yucatan , creating clouds of dust and smoke that blocked sunlight for months, probably causing the extinction of 90% of animals, including dinosaurs. A 100 km impact, capable of extinguishing all animal life on Earth, is probable within a billion years (Morrison et al., 2002). If an asteroid does not extinguish all animal life, the Sun will. In one billion years, the Sun will begin its Red Giant stage, increasing in size and temperature. Within six billion years, the Sun will have evaporated all of Earths water, and terrestrial temperatures will reach 1000 degrees -- much too hot for amino acid-based life to persist. If, somehow, life were to survive these changes, it will die in 7 billion years when the Sun forms a planetary nebula that irradiates Earth (Sackmann, Boothroyd, Kraemer, 1993; Ward and Brownlee, 2002). Earth is a dangerous place and animal life here has dim prospects. If there are 1012 sentient animals on Earth, only 1021 life-years remain. The only hope for terrestrial sentience surviving well beyond this limit is that some force will deflect large asteroids before they collide with Earth, giving sentients another billion or more years of life (Gritzner and Kahle, 2004); and/or terrestrial sentients will colonize other solar systems, giving sentients up to another 100 trillion years of life until all stars begin to stop shining (Adams and Laughlin, 1997). Life might survive even longer if it exploits non-stellar energy sources. But it is hard to imagine how life could survive beyond the decay of nuclear matter expected in 1032 to 1041 years (Adams and Laughlin, 1997). This may be the upper limit on the future of sentience.[footnoteRef:1][4] Deflecting asteroids and colonizing space could delay the extinction of Earth-originating sentience from 109 to 1041 years. Assuming an average population of one trillion sentients is maintained (which is a conservative assumption under colonization[footnoteRef:2][5]), these interventions would create between 1021 and 1053 life-years. At present on Earth, only a human civilization would be remotely capable of carrying out such projects. If humanity survives the next few centuries, its likely we will develop technologies needed for at least one of these projects. We may already possess the technologies needed to deflect asteroids (Gritzner and Kahle, 2004; Urias et al., 1996). And in the next few centuries, were likely to develop technologies that allow colonization. We will be strongly motivated by self-interest to colonize space, as asteroids and planets have valuable resources to mine, and as our survival ultimately requires relocating to another solar system (Kargel, 1994; Lewis, 1996). [1: ] [2: ]

It will be impossible for another species to evolve and achieve the capability to prevent extinctionMatheny 7 (Jason G., Special Advisor Center for Biosecurity, Ought We Worry About Human Extinction?, 12-6, http://jgmatheny.org/extinctionethics.htm)There could be other reasons to not worry about human extinction. For instance, it might be hoped that if humanity is extinguished, another animal will evolve and develop the technologies needed to preserve terrestrial life. This possibility should not give us much comfort. Some events, such as asteroid impacts, threaten all animal species, not just our own -- there may be no animal that survives to evolve. Moreover, the evolution of a civilization like ours may be a rare event. Another species that evolves to fill our intelligence niche could do as much environmental damage as humanity, and could have a worse ethical system. E.O. Wilson (1978, p. 104), describing species more violent than humans, remarked, I suspect that if hamadryas baboons had nuclear weapons, they would destroy the world in a week. And alongside ants, which conduct assassinations, skirmishes, and pitched battles as routine business, men are all but tranquilized pacifists. Alternatively, another intelligent species could have a better ethical system but too few ambitions to develop technologies essential to delaying extinction. Given the (probably) improbable position we find ourselves in, as a species with both the technological potential and the motivation to delay extinction, it would be imprudent to trust another species will evolve and possess the same. Moreover, it would take many millions of years for such a species to evolve. During that time, Earth will be exposed to astronomical risks, and entropy will have consumed resources that could otherwise have supported sentient life (Bostrom, 2003).

A2: HAARP

1. Their impact scenarios are empirically denied HAARP technology has been in use since the 1970s and the project isnt big enough to do any damage. Busch 97 (Linda, February 21, 1997, Ionosphere Research Lab Sparks Fears in Alaska, Science magazine, writer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/275/5303/1060?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=weather+manipulation&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=20&resourcetype=HWCIT)

But anti-HAARP skeptics claim that the military has even bigger plans for the project. HAARP's somewhat menacing appearance surely hasn't helped resolve its public-relations problem: 48 21-meter radio antennas now loom behind the Gakona facility's barbed-wire fence, and, when completed, the 9-hectare antenna farm will be stuffed with 180 towers. In his book, Begich, who is the informal spokesperson for the loosely knit anti-HAARP coalition, writes that all this technology is part of a DOD plan to raise a Star Wars-type missile shield and devise technologies for jamming global communications worldwide. Physical chemist Richard Williams, a consultant for the David Sarnoff Institute in Princeton, New Jersey, further argues that HAARP could irreparably damage the ionosphere: "This is basically atmospheric physicists playing with the ionosphere, which is vital to the life of this planet." Also, he asserts that "this whole concept of electromagnetic warfare" needs to be "publicly debated." The HAARP critics have asked for a public conference to discuss their concerns and hear more details about the science from the military. They have written hundreds of letters to Alaska's congressional delegation and have succeeded in getting the attention of several state legislators, who held legislative hearings on the subject last year. Many scientists who work on HAARP are dumbfounded by the charges. "We are just improving on technology that already exists," says Heckscher. He points out that the Max Planck Institute has been running a big ionospheric "heater" in Troms, Norway, since the late 1970s with no lasting effects. U.S. scientists don't have good access because the United States did not join the Norwegian consortium. Also, the United States already operates two other small ionospheric heaters, at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico and at HIPAS, operated by the University of California, Los Angeles, 325 kilometers down the road from HAARP in Chena Hot Springs, Alaska. The HAARP facility, with three times the power of current facilities and a vastly more flexible radio beam, will be the world's largest ionospheric heater. Still, it will not be nearly powerful enough to change Earth's climate, say scientists. "They are talking science fiction," says Syun-Ichi Akasofu, who heads the University of Alaska's Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks, the lead institution in a university consortium that made recommendations to the military about how HAARP could be used for basic research. HAARP won't be doing anything to the ionosphere that doesn't happen naturally as a result of solar radiation, says Akasofu. Indeed, the beam's effect on the ionosphere is minuscule compared to normal day-night variations. "To do what [the critics] are talking about, we would have to flatten the entire state of Alaska and put up millions of antennas, and even then, I am not sure it would work." Weather is generated, not in the ionosphere, but in the dense atmosphere close to Earth, points out University of Tulsa provost and plasma physicist Lewis Duncan, former chair of the U.S. Ionospheric Steering Committee. Because HAARP's radio beam only excites and heats ionized particles, it will slip right through the lower atmosphere, which is composed primarily of neutral gases. "If climate modifications were even conceivable using this technology, you can bet there would be a lot more funding available for it," he jokes.

2. Turn Ozone Depletion

A. HAARP is key to solving Ozone DepletionRembert 97 (Tracey C, January 11 1997, Discordant HAARP; High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, E: The Environmental Magazine, coordinator of Co-op America, Editor of Shareholders Action Quarterly http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1594/is_n1_v8/ai_19192505/pg_3)

So far, proponents of HAARP have concentrated solely on its defensive and tactical military applications, but one patent speculates that the device would be able to alter "upper-atmosphere wind patterns...so that positive environmental effects can be achieved...For example, ozone, nitrogen and other concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased." HAARP could also theoretically create rain in drought-ridden areas, decrease rains during flooding and redirect hurricanes, tornadoes and monsoons away from populated areas.

B. Ozone depletion causes extinctionGreenpeace in 95 (Full of Homes: The Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone Layer, http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html)

When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone layer depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with scepticism, but taken seriously nonetheless. The vast majority of credible scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis. The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Without the ozone layer, life on earth would not exist. Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system suppression in humans as well as innumerable effects on other living systems. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously, so quickly - the stakes are literally the continuation of life on earth.

3. Their impacts are science fiction their authors assume a project 1,000 times more powerful than HAARPCole, 95 (September 17, writer for Fairbanks News-Miner and 5-time published nonfiction author, HAARP Controversy http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/news/fnm995.html)

Alaskan Nick Begich Jr., who recently got a doctorate in the study of alternative medicine from a school based in Sri Lanka, has written and published a new book in which he alleges that HAARP could lead to "global vandalism" and affect people's "mental functions." Syun Akasofu, director of the Geophysical Institute, said the electric power in the aurora is hundreds of thousands of times stronger than that produced by HAARP.The most outlandish charges about HAARP are that it is designed to disrupt the human brain, jam all communications systems, change weather patterns over a large area, interfere with wildlife migration, harm people's health and unnaturally impact the Earth's upper atmosphere. These and other claims appear to be based on speculation about what might happen if a project 1,000 times more powerful than HAARP is ever built.That seems to be in the realm of science fiction.

Wrong HAARP wont cause warming its signals are a million times less powerful than government approved safety levels Rozell 97 (Ned, science writer at Geophysical Institute University of Alaska Fairbanks, June 5, Why All the Harping About HAARP? http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1340.html)

Is HAARP dangerous? Well, HAARP signals are one million times less dangerous than government-approved safety levels for any electrical signal. HAARP's transmitter currently has a power of 1/3 megawatt, which might be boosted to 3 megawatts in a few years, Heckscher said. He compared HAARP's effect on the vast ionosphere to the warming that would be experienced by the whole Copper River if you dipped in a small electric coil of the type used to warm one single cup of coffee. This is why Akasofu describes rumors he's heard circulating about HAARP as dangerous to people or the environment as pure science fiction. HAARP could present a potential danger to electronic equipment in aircraft that is flying overhead when the transmitter is turned on, but there are safety precautions against that. HAARP operators notify the Federal Aviation Administration with the HAARP transmission schedule and engineers are installing an aircraft-detection radar at HAARP to further ensure the safety of overflying aircraft. This same procedure is followed when rockets are launched from Poker Flat Research Range into the upper atmosphere.

Wrong HAARP wont lead to ionization two reasonsThe HAARP Scientists, 01 (March 14, http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/ion4.html, the scientists who work on HAARP writing about it on the HAARP website, What Are the Effects of HAARP on the Ionosphere?)

During active ionospheric research, a small, known amount of energy is added to a specific region of one of the ionospheric layers as discussed previously. This limited interactive region directly over the facility, will range in size, depending on the frequency of operation and layer height, from as little as 9 km in radius to as much as 40 km in radius and may be as much as 10 km in thickness. The interactions occur only with ionized particles in the layer; neutral (non-ionized) particles, which outnumber ionized particles by 500:1 or greater, remain unaffected. HAARP is not able to produce artificial ionization for the following two reasons. 1. The frequencies used by the HAARP facility are in the High Frequency (HF) portion of the spectrum. Electromagnetic radiation in the HF frequency range is non-ionizing - as opposed to the sun's ultraviolet and X-ray radiation whose photons have sufficient energy to be ionizing. 2. The intensity of the radiation from the completed HAARP facility at ionospheric heights will be too weak to produce artificial ionization through particle interactions. The power density produced by the completed facility will not exceed 2.8 microwatts per cm2, about two orders of magnitude below the level required for that process.

A2: Inertia Weapons

1. This is science fiction Smith has no qualifications, cites no research, and a google search using the terms in the article has 132 results; their author, and a bunch of teenagers on message boards talking about video games. There is zero mention of this by any government official this argument would be more credible if they had made it up.

2. Game over Intertia weapons are key to deterrence, they are our only chance at avoiding complete extinction this is their author, and we are the only ones reading the conclusion of his articleSmith 03 (Wayne, Space Daily 4/14, The Ultimate Weapon, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclear-blackmarket-03b.html)

Nuclear bombs are arguably the most devastating military weapon ever deployed by humankind. As a consequence of their development we have ironically enjoyed generations of relative peace on this planet.Everyone is just too frightened to start another world war. However, the holiday may be coming to an end as nuclear proliferation starts to escalate uncontrollably. In the beginning only the US had access to this technology and used it to finally end the greatest war this world had ever witnessed. Right or wrong, nobody can seriously question the total unconditional surrender of Japan as not being a direct consequence of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.Now the nuclear club is growing towards double figures although many of its new members aren't "officially" recognised. Many nations leaders are unhappy about the way some other countries have the bomb and they don't.Even those in as close proximity to the US as Mexico have expressed grievances over this issue. It is believed that more than a couple of countries are taking matters into their own hands by developing nuclear weapons arsenals secretly.It certainly wouldn't be the first time and a nuclear strike is not so intimidating a threat when everybody has the ability to counterstrike. As the number of global arsenals increase so grows the possibility they might in fact be used. Then all hell breaks loose and you can kiss your pension goodbye. We had many close calls during the cold war and can look forward more in the future. It might be the result of international tensions. A flock of birds mistakenly judged by radar operators to be a first strike. Perhaps a terrorist act or a meteor.One time the Russians mistook a rocket carrying a weather satellite on its way to study the aurora borealis as being a thermonuclear warhead targeted for Moscow. Accidents happen. How do you say sorry for mistakenly decimating a capital city. Is any nation on earth pussy enough not to retaliate if it has the means?Something of course needs to be done but nobody has any workable answers. Clearly everyone can't be trusted to disarm. Not in the real world. The temptation to hide some warheads would be too great and the shifts in international power would impact us in quite devastating ways. Conventional wars wouldn't be stymied by the nuclear card any more. What if all the racial tensions, political turmoil and religious zeal that has brewed and festered in its kettle for past generations proved stoppable only by the nuclear genie? China would probably invade Taiwan for a start.Nukes have made more conventional weapons pale into insignificance and countries like North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel realise the political clout afforded to them by ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads attached. It seems to be a vicious circle we can't escape but can only watch tighten around us.Only one weapon can do to the nuclear arsenals of this world what nuclear arsenals have done to conventional arms. Yes, a bigger stick does exist although it isn't much talked about. One that makes nukes a less attractive poor cousin by comparison.Inertia weapons have that potential. What's an inertia weapon? On a smaller scale, inertia weapons known as cars kill over a million people every year. To nations wanting the ultimate weapon no matter what the cost, a space inertia weapon is the holy grail.We are no strangers to this horror. It has visited numerous mass extinctions upon us in the past. Some of them responsible for removing up to 95% of life on Earth in one swift hammer blow. Everybody now knows that the most likely cause for the demise of the dinosaurs was a comet or asteroid striking around 65 million years ago.They also know that this created an opportunity for our small furry rat like ancestors to step in and take control. In fact its now believed the biosphere of our planet has almost started over from scratch many many times because of such planetary impacts.There has been much talk of late on how we might detect and even defend ourselves from such a catastrophe in the near future but nobody seems to be asking the next obvious question. Could such a weapon now be wielded by humans? The answer is a definite yes.While a nuclear explosion might destroy a maximum radius of approximately 37km due to the curvature of the earth, a large asteroid could decimate an entire continent. Asteroids require no replenishment of fissionable elements or other expensive maintenance and there are millions of them within easier reach than the moon.It's just like playing billiards. Every object in the universe in accordance with Newtonian laws travels in a straight line unless another force is applied to it.Unlike billiards there is virtually no friction in space so an object will maintain any velocity and heading indefinitely. At least until its redirected or something stops it.A spacefaring nation would have no trouble calculating the mathematical solutions for precisely changing an asteroid's trajectory. Then its a simple matter of nudging it. Push in the right spot and maintain the pressure until your gun is pointed at an appropriate target. This might be achieved in many ways.Reaction mass to drive your inertia weapon could be rocket propellant or the asteroids own mass. Just attach explosives or a few mass drivers. Whoever reaches deep space first will therefore be faced with the choice of utilising these 'inertia weapons' and the temptation will be great indeed. A big space rock could wipe out any enemy and the threat alone would equate to political clout beyond human comprehension.A city can after all be evacuated if a nuclear strike is threatened, but a country?If a nation chose to conquer the high ground of space then keeping everybody else out of it would be all that's necessary to ensure world dominance. Inertia weapons cannot proliferate unless more than one nation can actually reach them. The race to space could therefore end up being a race for control of the earth and solar system. I doubt any of this has escaped our leaders, both east and west.Would this be a bad thing? No worse than the first atomic bomb. The fact that it's unavoidable if we want space travel makes the question absurd. Why wouldn't a space faring nation seize a weapon ensuring it world dominance? Suppose this capability fell into the wrong hands though or was allowed to be owned by many spacefaring nations. Should that happen we might still see nuclear weapons become redundant and inertia weapons replace them as the newest threat to humanity.It would mean a new "Cold War" on a scale to dwarf the previous US and Russian one. A nuclear war despite all the bad press is in fact survivable. Not all human life would be eradicated and if all the nukes in the world were launched then we in the west might be set back a century. It would be nasty but not the end. It might seem like it but we would eventually recover.The same can't be said for a space war where mountains are directed at the earth.When the first space probe experimentally landed on the asteroid Eros recently, that celestial bodies motion was imperceptibly changed by the gentle bump of a manmade spacecraft for the very first time. A herald of greater things to come maybe. Nobody can accurately predict the future and I don't want to add my name to the long list of failed seers in history.The technology however is more than a prediction and has existed for a very long time. A new space race looks set between the US and enthusiastic newcomer China which I would call a safe bet. Now what do we do if China one day announces Ceres to be on course for the US and they want Taiwan in exchange for "assistance"?We might truly learn what it means to see the sky falling.In the movies "Armageddon" and "Deep Impact" we saw nukes save the earth in from both a rogue asteroid and a comet. Perhaps it will ironically prove to be the other way around. The threat of genocide from space might be persuasive enough to make nations disarm.Ultimately averting a future nuclear war. Expensive nuclear warheads would become second rate weapons.Expensive and redundant ones in the face of that firepower.

This argument proves we control uniqueness asteroids will inevitably strike earth with or without inertia weapons only technology gets us into space which is key to survive asteroid strikes

Directing an asteroid at earth would require too much energy it is a small risk and is redundant with nukesSpace Policy in 02 (Book Review; Target Earth, Volume 18, Issue 1, February, http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc021502.html)There is still the question as to what could or should be done if an impact threat is discovered. The MIT Project Icarus in 1967 calculated that six Saturn V launchers carrying 100 nuclear warheads would be needed to divert that asteroid if it became a hazard, as in its present orbit it conceivably could. Saturn V is no longer available but a similar effort could no doubt be mounted, given sufficient warning. The problem is the `Deflection Dilemma': if you can deflect asteroids or comets away from the Earth, that raises the possibility of deflecting them towards it. Duncan Steel's answer to that is not to build such a system until an actual threat is detected, but there's still the possibility of things sneaking up on us: one reason why we're still arguing about the nature of the Tunguska object in 1908 is that it approached from the direction of the Sun and wasn't seen until it entered the atmosphere. Watching for that would require eternal vigilance in space as well as on Earth, and we know how quickly governments tire of such things: the US administration turned off the science stations left by astronauts on the Moon only 5 years after Apollo, and cancelled the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence long before there was a realistic chance of success. But those of us who would like to see deflection systems developed now can take heart from a contribution to the 2001 Charterhouse conference on British rocketry by David Asher and Nigel Holloway. They made headlines with an outline of what it would take to bring down a 500-m asteroid on Telford and devastate England from the Scottish Borders to Devon. It was worth attending just to witness the stunned silence in which veterans of Britain's nuclear weapons programme heard details of how a single asteroid, under malevolent control, could reduce the UK to rubble. As one 80-year-old remarked, "If it takes 12 years and 15 nuclear warheads to bring down an asteroid on us, why not just use the weapons in the first place?" On the more serious level of preventing the impacts, another old-timer remarked that the UK share of the events wouldn't pay for a new housing estate, let alone what it would cost to rebuild the country after such an occurrence. But the study demonstrates that using asteroids as weapons takes much more effort than simply turning them aside from Earth, so the Deflection Dilemma has lost much of its force.

Gravity tractors solve the impactNew Scientist in 05 (Gravity Tractor to Deflect Earth Bound Asteroids, November 9, http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8291&feedId=online-news_rss20)

NASA scientists have come up with a surprisingly simple yet effective way to deflect an Earth-bound asteroid park a large spacecraft close by and let gravity do the work.Previous suggestions have focused on deflecting an incoming asteroid with nuclear explosions. But NASA experts believe a "gravity tractor" should be able to perform the same feat by creating an invisible towline to tug the rock off its deadly course.

Asteroid deflection solves asteroidsSpace.com in 06 (Robert Roy Britt, Science Writer, New Cosmic Defense Idea: Fight Asteroids with Asteroids, June 20, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060620_science_tuesday.html)

No asteroids are presently known to be on collision courses with Earth. But existing holes in the ground suggest that inevitably one will eventually be found. There is no firm plan for how to deflect or destroy an incoming asteroid, though scientists have pondered firing rockets at them, moving them gently with solar sails, or nudging them with nuclear explosions. Lock and load The new idea is to capture a relatively small asteroidperhaps 100 feet (30 meters) wideby sending a robot to it. The robot would heave material from the asteroid's surface into space, and the reaction force would gradually direct the asteroid to a Lagrange point, one of a handful of nodes along Earth's orbit where the gravity of Earth and the Sun balance out. Scientists know that objects can be kept stable at a Lagrange point with little or no energy. The captured rocky weapon would be held there, traveling around the Sun ahead of or behind the Earth, held until needed. Then, if a large asteroid threatens to hit us, the small one is moved into its path, using the same heaving technique. The rocks collide, and the big one is broken into somewhat less harmfull bits. The collision disperses the fragments of the incoming asteroid, so that not all of them hit the planet.A2: Rods From God Defense

Space Weapons are all hype they wont actually pan outGlobal Security 03 (U.S. the leader in war plans for space, 7/28, http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030728-space01.htm, Kunal)

Space weapons can be divided into three categories: those that would defend against ballistic missiles; those that would attack or defend satellites, and those that would attack targets on Earth. Boeing is already building a prototype Airborne Laser -- a modified 747 designed to shoot a laser beam from its nose and blow up ballistic missiles in their boost phase. Assuming the technology works, the next step could be putting a laser in orbit, where it could be aimed at enemy missiles, satellites, aircraft, perhaps ground targets eventually. A variety of antisatellite weapons could destroy, blind or jam enemy satellites. They could be launched from the ground, from high-flying aircraft or from other satellites. Some might be designed to simply crash into enemy satellites. Lasers might work best, because by blinding rather than destroying satellites, they would not fill lower Earth orbits with debris that other spacecraft might run into. Orbiting weapons capable of attacking Earth targets could include lasers, missiles or non-explosive projectiles like the so-called "Rods from God" proposal -- an orbiting platform that would send satellite-guided tungsten rods screaming toward Earth at a moment's notice. Simply by virtue of their speed and weight, the rods could destroy hardened bunkers four stories underground. Most of these weapons are in relatively early stages of research and development, and many may never pan out for technical, political or financial reasons. But the Pentagon seems determined to offer some of these space tools to U.S. policy makers withi