The U. S. Must be first with the space elevator in order to maintain superiority in space Kent 07

Extn: Extinction Inevitable

Yarynich is talking about Russia's doomsday machine. That's right, an actual doomsday device—a real, functioning version of the ultimate weapon, always presumed to exist only as a fantasy of apocalypse-obsessed science fiction writers and paranoid über-hawks. The thing that historian Lewis Mumford called "the central symbol of this scientifically organized nightmare of mass extermination." Turns out Yarynich, a 30-year veteran of the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces and Soviet General Staff, helped build one. The point of the system, he explains, was to guarantee an automatic Soviet response to an American nuclear strike. Even if the US crippled the USSR with a surprise attack, the Soviets could still hit back. It wouldn't matter if the US blew up the Kremlin, took out the defense ministry, severed the communications network, and killed everyone with stars on their shoulders. Ground-based sensors would detect that a devastating blow had been struck and a counterattack would be launched. The technical name was Perimeter, but some called it Mertvaya Ruka, or Dead Hand. It was built 25 years ago and remained a closely guarded secret. With the demise of the USSR, word of the system did leak out, but few people seemed to notice. In fact, though Yarynich and a former Minuteman launch officer named Bruce Blair have been writing about Perimeter since 1993 in numerous books and newspaper articles, its existence has not penetrated the public mind or the corridors of power. The Russians still won't discuss it, and Americans at the highest levels—including former top officials at the State Department and White House—say they've never heard of it. When I recently told former CIA director James Woolsey that the USSR had built a doomsday device, his eyes grew cold. "I hope to God the Soviets were more sensible than that." They weren't. The system remains so shrouded that Yarynich worries his continued openness puts him in danger. He might have a point: One Soviet official who spoke with Americans about the system died in a mysterious fall down a staircase. But Yarynich takes the risk. He believes the world needs to know about Dead Hand. Because, after all, it is still in place.

First, some background about Malthus: Robert Malthus was probably the first economist to raise the spectre of environmental destruction. He explained that though our resources tend to grow at a constant linear rate, the growing human population tends to consume those resources at an ever-increasing exponential rate. Eventually, we'll run out of resources. Malthus presented the world with two options: practise abstinence or die early in famines, wars, natural disasters and epidemics. Malthus has been declared dead and buried many times over since he wrote his original essay in 1798. Optimists point out that he did not realise that technology can solve all our problems, because it, too, can advance at an exponential rate. But recent natural disasters, food riots around the world and looming epidemics (such as the H1N1 virus) have shown that Malthus is not quite buried yet: there seem to be some truths that simply won't go away. Like the debate between believers and atheists, the debate between Malthus's supporters and environmental optimists probably cannot be settled by reason alone. Each side marshals its own group of scientists to present facts and logical arguments - yet neither side has been entirely convincing. As Pascal suggested, in such cases where reason fails, the best we can do is wager. The environmental debate really boils down to a bet on whether humans are subject to the laws of economics and nature. The optimists dispute the seriousness of deforestation, desertification, species extinction and climate change. They are betting that technology can outwit the law of diminishing marginal returns forever and continue to provide enough to satisfy the growing appetite of today's wasteful consumers. Malthusians are taking the view that ultimately the planet cannot support our growing needs and will end in disaster unless we stop our waste and unnecessary consumption. So, let's wager. On the one hand, we may bet with Malthus that we need to slow down our consumption to protect our natural resources and ecosystems. If we are right, humankind continues to exist and the planet is saved. If we are wrong, humankind continues to exist and we just waste less food, water and energy, and stop chasing after the latest fashion. On the other hand, we may bet that technology will always save us and that we can continue our waste. If we are right, we lose nothing. But if we are wrong, most or all of humankind dies in famines, natural disasters and wars.If you were a reasonable person, which side of Malthus's wager would you take? I suspect the rational person would agree that it would be most prudent to bet with Malthus. We have nothing to lose and the world to gain.

The world’s human population doubled from 1 to 2 billion between 1800 and 1930, and then doubled again by 1975. Sometime in 2011, it’s expected to top 7 billion. This staggering increase and the massive consumption it drives are overwhelming the planet’s finite resources. We’ve already witnessed the devastating effects of overpopulation on biodiversity: Species abundant in North America two centuries ago — from the woodland bison of West Virginia and Arizona’s Merriam’s elk to the Rocky Mountain grasshopper and Puerto Rico’s Culebra parrot — have been wiped out by growing human numbers. As the world’s population grows unsustainably, so do its unyielding demands for water, land, trees and fossil fuels — all of which come at a steep price for already endangered plants and animals. Most biologists agree we’re in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction event; species are disappearing about 1,000 times faster than is typical of the planet’s history. This time, though, it isn’t because of geologic or cosmic forces but unsustainable human population growth. Today’s global human population stands at 6.9 billion. Every day, the planet sees a net gain of roughly 250,000 people. If the pace continues, we’ll be on course to reach 8 billion by 2020 and 9 billion by 2050. By any ecological measure, Homo sapiens sapiens has exceeded its sustainable population size. Just a single human waste product — greenhouse gas — has drastically altered the chemistry of the planet’s atmosphere and oceans, causing global warming and ocean acidification.