nanomaterials aff

7/28/2019 Nanomaterials AFF

1/18


2/18

Contention One is Investment:

We isolate three internal links ---

a. the first is slow growth; unemployment and lack ofinvestment is killing the economy, only the plans targetedinvestment in infrastructure can bring consumer confidenceback

Baker 2/18 Dean, Ph. D in Economics from the University of Michigan, Professor of Economics at BucknellUniversity, Founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Senior Economist at the Economic Policy Institute,Senior consultant for the World Bank, Only spending can save us now,http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/spending-save-article-1.1265644Public debate over economic policy has unfortunately been buried in a pointless debate about deficits. This is unfortunatebecause it ignores the most urgent problem facing the country: an economy that remains severely depressed following

the collapse of the housing bubble. The 7.9% unemployment rate would at othertimes be viewed as a disaster. The first stimulus was passed under President George W. Bush whenthe unemployment rate was a mere 4.7%. Even the 7.9% figure understates the severity ofthe downturn, because it excludes millions of part-time workers andpeople who have given up looking for work. Instead of focusing on unemployment,however, the national political debate has become centered on distant debt targets. The assumption in this debate is thatthe country has a chronic debt problem that is threatening to undermine its financial and economic stability. But heresthe simple truth: there is no debt problem. The deficits we were running before the downturn were quite modest. The

debt-to-GDP ratio was actually falling, meaning that the country could run deficits of this sizeliterally forever. While it may have been desirable to have a smaller deficit or even a surplus, you would haveto turn reality on its head to claim that the country had a debt crisis before the downturn in 2008. The downturn directlycontributed to the deficit by causing tax collections to plummet. It also led to an increase in spending on unemploymentinsurance and related programs. This shift to larger deficits is built into the structure of how taxes and spending work. It

helps to support the economy when private sector demand falls off as it did after the housing bubble collapsed. Wealso deliberately increased the deficit further with tax cuts and all that spending in the stimulus. While the stimulus hasphased out, it added roughly $350 billion a year to the deficits in 2009 and 2010. The need for these deficits stems froma stark reality: There is nothing in the private sector that will replace the $1 trillion in annual construction andconsumption demand that we lost when the housing bubble collapsed and the rest of the economy pretty much followed.We can love the private sector to death, but businesses do not invest because politicians love them. They invest when

they see demand. They dont see it now and are not likely to see it any time soon. Consumers also willnot go back to spending the way they did at the peak of the bubble forthe simple reason that $8 trillion in housing-bubble wealth hasvanished. In this context, the government has the responsibility to fillthe gap in demand. It can best do this through investments that willboth create demand in the short-term and increase our productive

capacity in the longer term. There is a long list of items that fit this bill. There areenormous needs for repairing and improving our physicalinfrastructure. This includes not just the standard roads and bridges, but also measures to protect us from thesort of damage caused by superstorm Sandy. As many have noted, Mayor Bloomberg foremost among them, suchdamage will be more common in the future due to global warming.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/spending-save-article-1.1265644http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/spending-save-article-1.1265644http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/spending-save-article-1.1265644http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/spending-save-article-1.1265644http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/spending-save-article-1.1265644


3/18

The plan solves: infrastructure investments stimulate economicgrowth and crowds in private investmentStiglitz 12 Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel Prize Winner in Economics, Ph. D in Economics from MIT, Professor ofEconomics at Columbia University, Co-founder and Co-President at the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at ColumbiaUniversity, Former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist at the World Bank, Stimulating the Economy in an Era ofDebt and Deficit,http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ev

Any diagnosis of the current economic situation should focus on thefact that the shortfall between actual and potential unemployment ishuge and that monetary policy has proven ineffective, at least in restor- ing theeconomy to anything near full employment. Under these circumstances, the traditional economists solution has been to

advocate the use of fiscal policytax cuts and/or spending increases. There is an especiallycompelling case for increasing public investments because they wouldincrease GDP and employment today as well as increase output in thefuture. Given low interest rates, the enhanced growth in GDP would more than offset the increased cost ofgovernment spending, reducing national debt in the medium term. Moreover, the ratio of debt to GDP would decrease

and the ability of the U.S. economy to sustain debt (debt sustainability) would improve. This happy state ofaffairs is especially likely given the ample supply of high-return invest-

ment opportunities in infrastructure, technology, and education resulting from underinvest-ment in these areas over the past quarter century. Moreover, well-designed public investmentswould raise the return on private investments, crowding in this

additional source of spending. Together, increased public and private investment would raiseoutput and employment in the short run, and increase growth and debt sustainability in the medium and long run. Suchspending would reduce (not increase) the ratio of debt to GDP. Thus, the objection that the U.S. should not engage insuch fiscal policies because of the high ratio of debt to GDP is simply wrong; even those who suffer from deficit fetishismshould support such measures. Critics of this standard Keynesian prescrip- tion raise two objections: (a) government isnot likely to spend the money on high return investments, so that the promised gains will prove elusive and (b) thefiscal multipliers are small (perhaps negative), suggesting that the short- run gains from fiscal policy are minimal at best.Both of these objections are easily dismissed in the current economic environment. First, the assertion that government isinca- pable of making high return investments is just wrong. Studies of the average returns on government spending oninvestments in technology show extraordinarily high returns, with returns on investments in infrastructure and educationreturns well above the cost of borrowing. Thus, from a national point of view, investments in these areas make sense,

even if the government fails to make the investments with the absolute highest returns. Second, the many variants of theargument that the fiscal multiplier is small typically rest on the assumption that as government spending increases, somecategory of private expenditure will decline to offset this increase. 1 Certainly, when the economy is at full employmentand capital is being fully utilized, GDP cannot increase. Hence, under the circumstances, the multiplier must be zero. Buttodays economic conditions of significant and persistent resource underutilization have not been experienced since theGreat Depression. As a result, it is simply meaningless to rely on empirical estimates of multipliers based on post-WorldWar II data. Contractionary monetary policy is another reason why multipliers may be markedly larger now than theywere in some earlier situations of excess capacity. In these cases, monetary author- ities, excessively fearful of inflation,responded to deficit spending by raising interest rates and constraining credit availability, thus dampening privatespending. But such an outcome is not inevitable; it is a result of policies, often guided by mistaken economic theories. Inany case, such an outcome is irrelevant today. This is because the Federal Reserve is committed to an unprecedentedpolicy of maintaining near-zero interest rates through at least the end of 2014, while at the same time encouraginggovernment spending. With interest rates at record lows and the Federal Reserve committed to keeping them there,

crowding out of private investment simply will not occur. On the contrary, as I have noted, publicinvestment for instance, in better infrastructureis more likely to

increase the returns to private investment. Such public spendingcrowds in private investment, increasing the multiplier. Sometimes economistsclaim that consumers, worried about future tax liabilities in the wake of government spending, would contract theirspending. However, the applicability of this notion (referred to as Ricardian equivalence) is contradicted by the fact thatwhen George W. Bush lowered taxes and massively increased the deficit, savings plummeted to zero. But even if one

believed in the applicability of Ricardian equivalence in todays economy, government spending oninvestments that increase future growth and improve the debt-to-GDP ratio would induce rational to spend more today. Consumption
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/evhttp://www.degruyter.com/view/j/evhttp://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ev


4/18

would also be crowded in by such government expenditures, not crowd- edout.

Austerity kills the economy; empirics proveRosenthal et al 5/4[Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor of The New York Times, is in charge of the paper's opinion pages, bothin the newspaper and online. He oversees the editorial board, the Letters and Op-Ed departments, as well as the Editorial and Op-Ed sections of NYTimes.com;Terry Tang has a B.A. in economics from Yale University and a J.D. from New York University School of Law. She was a Nieman Fellow at Harvard in 1992-1993;Robert B. Semple Jr. received the Pulitzer Prize in 1996 for his editorials on environmental issues; Serge Schmemann is the editorial page editor of theInternational Herald Tribune in Paris, a post to which he was assigned in May 2003, shortly after The New York Times assumed full possession of the IHT. Mr.Schmemann joined The Times in December 1980 after eight years with the Associated Press, and worked for many years as a Times correspondent and bureauchief in Moscow, Bonn, Jerusalem and the United Nations. He served as the deputy foreign editor in New York from 1999 to 2001, "European Stagnation," TheNew York Times, 5/4/2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/opinion/sunday/european-stagnation.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&]Economic conditions in Europe, especially in troubled nations like Spain, Portugal and Italy, havedeteriorated sharply in recent months. Worse, new data released last weekprovides no hope for a recovery soon. The unemployment rate in the 17 countries that use theeuro hit a record of 12.1 percent in March, up from 11 percent a year earlier. In Spain and Greece, more than half of the

labor force under 25 is looking for work. The good news, if it can be called that, is that a barrage ofnegative economic data appears to have stirred European leaders andsenior officials at the International Monetary Fund into finally acknowledging that the

Continents austerity policies are imposing unnecessary pain andsuffering on average Europeans while doing little to lower debts and deficits. Jos Manuel Barroso, the president ofthe European Commission, recently declared that austerity has reached its limits in manyrespects. And David Lipton, the first deputy managing director of the I.M.F., recently called on Europe to adopt moregrowth-friendly policies and encouraged the European Central Bank to use unconventional measures like bond purchases

to increase credit and stimulate the economy. This awakening is fine as a start. But real change will comewhen European leaders start reversing damaging budget cuts and restructuring their fragilebanks. That means changing the status quo, no easy task. For starters, countries that use the euro have committed tomaintaining fiscal deficits no higher than 3 percent of their gross domestic product as part of a fiscal compact with oneanother. And despite the fact that France, Portugal and several others are already struggling to meet that cap, even after

raising taxes and slashing spending, nations like Germany and Finland remain committed to austerity. This isnot smart. Enforcing these limits in the middle of a deep recession will not lower

labor costs, increase competitiveness and reduce debt. On the contrary, it willsimply perpetuate the downward spiral that weaker countries are stuck in and fosterwidespread anger without providing any meaningful economic payoff. Meanwhile, apromising effort to deal with troubled banks appears to have been sidetracked or at least slowed. In December, theEuropean Union agreed to centralize the supervision of large banks under the European Central Bank by March 2014 as afirst step toward a banking union. But Wolfgang Schuble, the finance minister of Germany, recently suggested that E.U.members first renegotiate changes to the unions treaties to clearly separate the monetary and supervisory functions ofthe central bank. Wrangling over technical amendments could easily delay the broader effort to put the whole financialsystem on sounder footing. At a meeting later this month in Brussels, E.U. leaders plan to discuss ways to improve thecurrency union, but they do not anticipate changing basic policies. In fact, analysts expect no major action until afterGermanys national elections in September. The conditions of 26.5 million unemployed Europeans who need help rightaway should not depend on an election that may or may not change anything.

Stimulus has been empirically provenBoushey & Ettlinger 11 Heather Boushey, Senior Economist at the Center for American Progress,previously held economist positions with the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, the Center for Economicand Policy Research, and the Economic Policy Institute, holds a Ph.D. in economics from the New School for SocialResearch, and Michael Ettlinger, Vice President for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress, previouslyserved as Director of Economic Analysis and Research at the Economic Policy Institute, holds a J.D. from AmericanUniversity, 2011 (Government Spending Can Create Jobsand It Has, Center for American Progress, September,

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/pdf/yes_we_can.pdf)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/pdf/yes_we_can.pdfhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/pdf/yes_we_can.pdfhttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/pdf/yes_we_can.pdf


5/18

President Barack Obama swept into office on a mantra of Yes, we can. Even though our economy was nearly two yearsinto the Great Recession and jobs were being lost at a record pace, he projected a sense of optimism that, together, we

could fix it. And history tells us that even when economic times are bleak, there aredoable steps that a government can take that make a difference to getthe economy back on a path of growth and job creation. Indeed, theres along history that when unemployment rises, the government steps in

to pave the way for job creation. And these policies have been effective. Its time to do so againbecause, well, yes, we can. There is an empirically grounded body of literaturedocumenting the effectiveness of fiscal expansion during recessionsand the importance of economic multipliers in creating jobs above andbeyond those directly created by one firm or one government project.1The New Deal programs of the Great Depression are, of course, thegrand- daddy of these measures. The New Deal programs stabilized our economy, though it wasthe massive government job creation fueled by World War II that finally put an end to the economic devastation.

Since then, presidents and congresses of all political stripesincludingthe Bush admin- istrationhave embraced short-term, temporary fiscalexpansion to create jobs in times of labor market weakness.2 Eachtime, they worked as intended. And this isnt just the experience of the

United States. Economies around the world reflecting a wide range ofeconomic ideologies understand the importance of government actionin the face of economic crises.

b. the second internal link is infrastructure; crumblingtransportation infrastructure will decimate the economy ---only fixing it can solve

EDR Group 11 (Economic Development Research Group, Inc.a consulting firm focusing specifically on applyingstate-of-the-art tools and techniques for evaluating economic development performance, impacts, and opportunities,comprised of economists and planners who are specialists in evaluating the impacts of transportation infrastructure,

services, and technology on economic development opportunities, 2011 Executive Summary, Failure to Act: TheEconomic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation Infrastructure, Report Prepared for the

American Society of Civil Engineers by the Economic Development Research Group, Inc.,http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Infrastructure/Report_Card/ASCE-FailureToActFinal.pdf, p. 3-6)

The nations surface transportation infrastructure includes the criticalhighways, bridges, railroads, and transit systems that enable peopleand goods to access the markets, services, and inputs of productionessential to Americas economic vitality. For many years, the nations surfacetransportation infrastructure has been deteriorating. Yet because this deteriorationhas been diffused throughout the nation, and has occurred gradually over time, its true costs and economicimpacts are not always immediately apparent. In practice, the transportation funding thatis appropriated is spent on a mixture of system expansion and preservation projects. Although these allocations have

often been sufficient to avoid the imminent failure of key facilities, the continued deteriorationleaves a significant and mounting burden on the U.S. economy. This burdenwill be explored further in this report. Deteriorating conditions and performanceimpose costs on American households and businesses in a number ofways. Facilities in poor condition lead to increases in operating costs fortrucks, cars, and rail vehicles. Additional costs include damage to vehicles from deteriorated roadwaysurfaces, imposition of both additional miles traveled, time expended to avoid unusable or heavily congested roadways ordue to the breakdown of transit vehicles, and the added cost of repairing facilities after they have deteriorated asopposed to preserving them in good condition. In addition, increased congestion decreases the reliability of transportation
http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Infrastructure/Report_Card/ASCE-FailureToActFinal.pdfhttp://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Infrastructure/Report_Card/ASCE-FailureToActFinal.pdfhttp://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Infrastructure/Report_Card/ASCE-FailureToActFinal.pdf


6/18

facilities, meaning that travelers are forced to allot more time for tr ips to assure on-time arrivals (and for freightvehicles, on-time delivery). Moreover, it increases environmental and safety costs by exposing more travelers tosubstandard travel conditions and requiring vehicles to operate at less efficient levels. As conditions continue to

deteriorate over time, they will increasingly detract from the ability ofAmerican households and businesses to be productive and prosperousat work and at home. This report is about the effect that surface

transportation deficiencies have, and will continue to have, on U.S.economic performance. For the purpose of this report, the term defi- ciency is defined as the extent towhich roads, bridges, and transit services fall below standards defined by the U.S. Department of Transpor- tation as

minimum tolerable conditions (for roads and bridges) and state of good repairfor transit1. These standards aresubstantially lower than ideal conditions, such as free-flow2, that are used by some researchers as the basis forhighway analysis. This report is about the effect these deficiencies have, and will continue to have, on U.S. economicperformance. In 2010, it was estimated that deficiencies in Americas surface transportation systems cost households andbusinesses nearly $130 billion. This included approximately $97 billion in vehicle operating costs, $32 billion in travel timedelays, $1.2 billion in safety costs and $590 million in environmental costs. In 2040, Americas projected infrastructuredeficiencies in a trends extended scenario are expected to cost the national economy more than 400,000 jobs.

Approximately 1.3 million more jobs could exist in key knowledge-based and technology-related economic sectors if sufficienttransportation infrastructure were maintained. These losses are balanced against almost900,000 additional jobs projected in tradition- ally lower-paying service sectors of the economy that would benefit bydeficient transportation (such as auto repair services) or by declining productivity in domestic service related sectors(such as truck driving and retail trade). If present trends continue, by 2020 the annual costs imposed on the U.S.economy by Failure to Act: The Economic Impact of Current Investment Trends in Surface Transportation 3 deterioratinginfrastructure will increase by 82% to $210 billion, and by 2040 the costs will have increased by 351% to $520 billion(with cumulative costs mounting to $912 billion and $2.9 trillion by 2020 and 2040, respectively). Table 1 summarizes theeconomic and societal costs of todays deficiencies, and how the present values of these costs are expected toaccumulate by 2040. Table 2 provides a summary of impacts these costs have on economic performance today, andhow these impacts are expected to increase over time. The avoidable transportation costs that hinder the nationseconomy are imposed primarily by pavement and bridge conditions, highway congestion, and transit and train vehicle

conditions that are operating well below minimum tolerable levels for the level of traffic they carry. If thenations infrastructure were free of deficient conditions in pavement,bridges, transit vehicles, and track and transit facilities, Americanswould earn more personal income and industry would be more

productive, as demonstrated by the gross domestic product (valueadded) that will be lost if surface transportation infrastructure is notbrought up to a standard of minimum tolerable conditions.As of 2010, theloss of GDP approached $125 billion due to deficient surface transportation infrastructure. The expected losses in GDPand personal income through 2040 are dis- played in Table 2. Across the U.S., regions are affected differently by deficientand deteriorating infrastructure. The most affected regions are those with the largest concentrations of urban areas,because urban highways, bridges and transit systems are in worse condition today than rural facilities. Peak commut-ing patterns also place larger burdens on urban capacities. However, because the nation is so dependent on theInterstate Highway System, impacts on interstate performance in some regions or area types are felt throughout thenation. Nationally, for highways and transit, 630 million vehicle hours traveled were lost due to congestion in 2010. Thistotal is expected to triple to 1.8 billion hours by 2020 and further increase to 6.2 billion hours in 2040.3 These vehiclehours understate person hours and underscore the severity of the loss in productivity. The specific economic implications

of the further deterioration of the U.S. national surface transportation system are as follows: Deficientsurface transportation infrastructure will cost Americans nearly $3

trillion by 2040, as shown in Table 1, which represents more than $1.1 trillion inadded business expenses and nearly $1.9 trillion from house- holdbudgets. This cost to business will reduce the productivity and competitiveness of American firms relative toglobal competitors. Increased cumulative cost to businesses will reach $430 billion by 2020. Businesses will have to divertincreasing portions of earned income to pay for transportation delays and vehicle repairs, draining money that wouldotherwise be invested in innovation and expansion. Households will be forced to forgo discre- tionary purchases suchas vacations, cultural events, educational opportunities, and restau- rant meals, reduce health related purchases alongwith other expenditures that affect quality of life, in order to pay transportation costs that could be avoided ifinfrastructure were built to sufficient levels. Increased cumulative costs to households will be $482 billion in 2020. TheU.S. will lose jobs in high value, high-paying services and manufacturing industries. Overall, this will result in employee


7/18

income in 2040 that is $252 billion less than would be the case in a transportation-sufficient economy. In general threedistinct forces are projected to affect employment: First, a negative impact is due to larger costs of transportationservices in terms of time expended and vehicle costs. These costs absorb money from businesses and households thatwould otherwise be directed to investment, innovation and quality of life purchases. Thus, not only will business andpersonal income be lower, but more of that income will need to be diverted to transportation related costs. This dynamicwill create lower demand in key economic sectors associated with business investments for expansion and research anddevelopment, and in consumer sectors. Second, the impact of declining business productivity, due to inefficient surfacetransportation, tends to push up employment, even if income is declining. Productivity deteriorates with infrastructure

degradation, so more resources are wasted in each sector. In other words, it may take two jobs to complete the tasksthat one job could handle without delays due to worsening surface transportation infrastructure.

A transition to nano-material infusion can ensure successSteyn 8(Prof Wynand Steyn is a professional pavement engineer with an interest in pavement engineering, vehicle-pavement interaction, accelerated pavement testing and pavement materials and instrumentation. He has spent 19 yearswith CSIR in various technical and managerial positions and is currently associate professor of civil engineering (focusingon road pavement related subjects) at the University of Pretoria (UP). He is responsible for all pavement and pavementmaterial related undergraduate and post graduate courses at UP, RESEARCH AND APPLICATION OF NANOTECHNOLOGYIN TRANSPORTATION,http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/6352/Steyn.pdf?sequence=1,pdf)

The typical solutions indicated under the durability aspects in theprevious section of this paper will also potentially affect the

economical aspects of infrastructure provision for transportation.Benefits that can be obtained through the application of strongermaterials should ultimately result in the decrease for the amount ofmaterial (i.e. thinner concrete layers for pavements) affecting the construction cost. Obviously, the life-cycle effectsin terms of durability and expected maintenance requirements of the material should be included in any cost evaluation.

The general service life of infrastructure can be increased through theimprovement of the resistance of the infrastructure to environmentaleffects. In this regard the various types of nano-composite coatingsthat can be applied to concrete surfaces (i.e. bridge abutments and pillars) (Arafa et al, 2005;Papakonstantinou, 2005) is an example of prolonging the life of the facility. Most of these coatings differ from traditionalcoatings in terms of the way in which they bond to the substrate material, providing a more robust layer that bindschemically with the substrate. The incorporation of sensing elements that can provide timeous indications of changes in

the properties of infrastructure materials to ensure timeous maintenance is another area where potential developmentsmay cause cost savings. However, most of the work in this regard (on a nanoscale) is currently performed in the areas ofbiological and chemical sensors, and further developments will be required to obtain realistic systems. 3.4 SustainabilityIn terms of the need for sustainable pavements Maher et al (2006) defined the main criteria for a sustainable pavementas follows: Minimizing the use of natural resources; Reducing energy consumption; Reducing greenhouse gasemissions; Limiting pollution (air, water, earth, noise); Improving health, safety, and risk prevention, and Ensuring ahigh level of user comfort and safety. In terms of the potential effect of nanotechnology on transport infrastructure thefocus in terms of sustainability would thus again lies in the realm of modification of existing materials that may be harmfulto the environment, either through their general application in the infrastructure, or through their production or extractingthem from the environment in the first place. Further, the focus can be on the efficient re-use of existing materials eitherthrough reworking them and changing the structure to ensure that the properties of the materials are improved toprovide a longer life. Materials can be modified to enable construction at lower energy levels (i.e. lower temperatures) tolower the energy requirements for the construction process. Prevention of health and safety effects through themodification of existing materials to enable an inert material that does not cause damage to the environment any morecan be investigated (i.e. modification of asbestos to prevent the release of fibres into the airways). Limiting pollution ofair and waterways through the flocculation of materials and thereafter chemically binding them to the substrate in thefacility i.e. binding particulates from vehicles through TiO2 process with elements in concrete to lower NOx pollution(Cassar, 2005).

That is the ONLY sustainable strategyKhan 11 (Mohammud, The author is Senior Vice President, Professional Service Industries, Inc., Herndon, Virginia.,

Nanotechnology in Transportation: Evolution of a Revolutionary Technology,http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews277.pdf)
http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/6352/Steyn.pdf?sequence=1http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/6352/Steyn.pdf?sequence=1http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews277.pdfhttp://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews277.pdfhttp://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews277.pdfhttp://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/6352/Steyn.pdf?sequence=1


8/18

Changing the structure of a material at nanoscale changes its physical,mechanical, electrical, and mag- netic properties, heat conduction, and light reflection. These changes from

nanostructuring can produce improved or new-generation constructionmaterials. For example, researchers have duplicated the natural nanostructure of lotus leaves to create water-repellent surfaces. The same approach can be used to develop coatings for steel and concrete surfaces. Combiningcarbon nanotubes with plastics could produce composites that are even stronger than steel and could be used in

lightweight beams and girders for bridge applications or in corrosion-resistant bars for a variety of structures. Carbonnanotube-based membranes are now in use for water desalination, and nanosensors are helping identify contaminants inwater systems. A similar application may be used to keep aggres- sive chemicals away from concrete and steel surfaces,resisting several mechanisms of deterioration. The strength and flexibility of spider silk, which is natu- rally reinforcedwith nanoscale crystals, perhaps can be duplicated to strengthen materials for repair and retrofit applications (1).Transportation Applications The transportation applications of nanotechnology research received little attention before

2005. Since then, the challenge has been to formulate a long-term,sustainable strategy that promotes the development ofnanotechnology and ensures the necessary funding. The 1999 InternationalTechnology Research Institute Report noted the interest of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in nano-structured coatings, sensors for physical transportation infrastructure, and smart materials. All of these were included inthe themes and modes of the departments research and development (R&D) objectives in the fiscal year (FY) 2001

budget (2). Although these were good, broad themes for nano- technologyresearch, the lack of a well-defined and well-planned strategyhampered research progress. The nanotechnology research themes identified by U.S. DOT in 2001also did not focus on understanding the behavior of transportation materials at the nanoscale. The U.S. DOT budgetrequest for FY 2010, however, included $3 million for nanotechnology research aimed at improving fundamentalunderstanding of the structure and properties of highway construction materials at the nanoscale (3).

c. the third internal link is the manufacturing industry; nomatter any slight growth now, the lack of effective jobshamstrings recovery

Curtin 12(Staff Writer for CNBC News and the Daily Ticker, Stacy, 10/17/12, Manufacturing 'Recovery' Not All It'sCracked Up to Be?,http://www.cnbc.com/id/49448048)

While proposals by both candidates aim to build a more robust manufacturing sector, those types ofjobsaccount for only 9% of the total U.S. workforce. That number is likely to grow accordingto estimates by the Boston Consulting Group, which projects 5 million manufacturing and supporting jobs will return

home over the next 10 years largely to due rising production and labor costs in emerging markets like China. But isthis recovery in manufacturing sustainable? Harvard Business Schoolprofessors Gary Pisano and Willy Shih do not believe it is. They joined The DailyTicker's Aaron Task to discuss their new book "Producing Prosperity: Why America Needs a Manufacturing Renaissance"which underscores how important a strong manufacturing base is for American innovation. "I think we've seen obviouslysome shorter-term blips, if you will, in the last year or so," says Pisano. "They are good, but I would not get overlyexcited that that is suggesting some big structural long-term change." While there may be a slight uptick in the level ofmanufacturing jobs, the professors are quick to note that the type of jobs that left the U.S. are not the ones that arecoming back. "They are low-skilled, lower wage jobs," Pisano says of the jobs that are returning. If wages are to grow,

the nation needs to be involved in more sophisticated manufacturing

that other countries cannot do.

Surface transportation investment is the critical link torevitalizing the manufacturing industryHermann 11 (P.E. SECB, F.ASCE President American Society of Civil Engineers, Andrew, Impact OfInfrastructure Investment On The Manufacturing Sector, lexis)Failure to Act estimates that in order to bring the nation's surface transportation up to good levels, or a grade of B,policymakers must invest approximately $1.7 trillion in the nation's highway systems between now and 2020. The
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49448048http://www.cnbc.com/id/49448048http://www.cnbc.com/id/49448048http://www.cnbc.com/id/49448048


9/18

U.S. is currently on track to spend a portion of that, a projected $877 billion, during the same timeframe. Thisinfrastructure funding gap equals $846 billion over 9, years or $94 billion per year, from all levels of government.Small investments in infrastructure, equal to about 60 percent of what Americans spend on fast food each yearwould: Protect 1.1 million jobs Save Americans nearly 2 billion hours in travel time each year Deliver an average of$1,068 to each family; and Protect $2,600 in GDP for every man, woman, and child in the United States.

Surface transportation infrastructure is a critical engine of thenation's economy. It is the thread which knits the country together.

To compete in the global economy, improve our quality of life andraise our standard of living, we must successfully rebuild America'spublic infrastructure. ASCE looks forward to working with Congress as it develops legislation whichwill bring the nation's infrastructure into the Twenty-First Century. As shown in ASCE's surface transportation

economic study, the nation's economic health is dependent on a strong infrastructure system. By updating,maintaining, and building our roads, bridges, and transit systems,the nation can create jobs in both the public and private sector,while fostering and growing manufacturing in the United States.Therefore, the first step toward a modernized transportation systemmust include passing a multi-year surface transportation authorization, at or

above current levels of investment. The nation's economic health will continue to belinked to its infrastructure strength, which means the time to act is now.

The manufacturing industry is the lynchpin to the economyEttlinger 11[Michael, Vice President for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress Prior to joining theCenter, he spent six years at the Economic Policy Institute directing the Economic Analysis and Research Network.Previously, he was tax policy director for Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy for 11years. He has also served on the staff of the New York State Assembly. The Importance and Promise of AmericanManufacturing Why It Matters if We Make It in America and Where We Stand Today,http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/04/pdf/manufacturing.pdf]

Manufacturing is critically important to the American economy. Forgenerations, the strength of our country rested on the power of our factoryfloorsboth the machines and the men and women who worked them. We need manufacturing tocontinue to be a bedrock of strength for generations to come. Manufacturing iswoven into the structure of our economy: Its importance goes far beyond what happensbehind the factory gates. The strength or weakness of American manufacturing carries implications for the entire

economy, our national security, and the well-being of all Americans. Manufacturing today accountsfor 12 percent of the U.S. economy and about 11 percent of theprivate-sector workforce. But its significance is even greater than these numbers would suggest. Thedirect impact of manufacturing is only a part of the picture. First, jobs in the manufacturing sector are good middle-class

jobs for millions of Americans. Those jobs serve an important role, offering economic opportunity to hard-working,middle-skill workers. This creates upward mobility and broadens and strengthens the middle class to the benefit of theentire economy. Whats more, U.S.-based manufacturing underpins a broad range of jobs that are quite different from theusual image of manufacturing. These are higher-skill service jobs that include the accountants, bankers, and lawyers that

are associated with any industry, as well as a broad range of other jobs including basic research and technologydevelopment, product and process engineering and design, opera- tions and maintenance, transportation, testing, and labwork. Many of these jobs are critical to American technology and innovation leadership. The problem today is this: Manymultinational corporations may for a period keep these higher-skill jobs here at home while they move basic manufac-turing elsewhere in response to other countries subsidies, the search for cheaper labor costs, and the desire for moredirect access to overseas markets, but eventually many of these service jobs will follow. When the basic manufacturingleaves, the feedback loop from the manufacturing floor to the rest of a manufacturing operationa critical element in theinnovative processis eventually broken. To maintain that feedback loop, companies need to move higher-skill jobs towhere they do their manufacturing. And with those jobs goes American leadership in technology and innovation. This iswhy having a critical mass of both manufacturing and associated service jobs in the United States matters. The industrialcommons that comes from the cross- fertilization and engagement of a community of experts in industry, academia, and
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/04/pdf/manufacturing.pdfhttp://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/04/pdf/manufacturing.pdf


10/18

government is vital to our nations economic competitiveness. Manufacturing also is important forthe nations economic stability. The experience of the Great Recession exemplifies this point.

Although manufacturing plunged in 2008 and early 2009 along with the rest of the economy, it is on the rebound todaywhile other key economic sectors, such as construction, still languish. Diversity in the economy is importantandmanufacturing is a particularly important part of the mix. Although manufacturing is certainly affected by broadereconomic events, the sectors internal diversitysupplying consumer goods as well as industrial goods, serving both

domestic and external markets gives it great potential resiliency. Finally, supplying our own needs through a strongdomestic manufacturing sector protects us from internationaleconomic and political disruptions. This is most obviously important in the realm of nationalsecurity, even narrowly defined as matters related to military strength, where the risk of a weak manufacturing capability

is obvious. But overreliance on imports and substantial manufacturing tradedeficits weaken us in many ways, making us vulnerable to everything fromexchange rate fluctuations to trade embargoes to natural disasters.

Advanced manufacturing technology makes war obsolete; it is theultimate deterrentPaone 9(66th Air Base Wing Public Affairs for the US Air Force, Chuck, 8-10-09, Technology convergence couldprevent war, futurist says,http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123162500)

The convergence of "exponentially advancing technologies" will form a "super-intelligence" so formidable that it could avert war, according to one of the world'sleading futurists. Dr. James Canton, CEO and chairman of the Institute for Global Futures, a San Francisco-based thinktank, is author of the book "The Extreme Future" and an adviser to leading companies, the military and other governmentagencies. He is consistently listed among the world's leading speakers and has presented to diverse audiences around theglobe. He will address the Air Force Command and Control Intelligence, Survelliance and Reconnaissance Symposium,which will be held Sept. 28 through 30 at the MGM Grand Hotel at Foxwoods in Ledyard, Conn., joining Air Force Chief ofStaff Gen. Norton Schwartz and a bevy of other government and industry speakers. He offered a sneak preview of hissymposium presentation and answered various questions about the future of technology and warfare in early August.

"The superiority of convergent technologies will prevent war," Doctor Cantonsaid, claiming their power would present an overwhelming deterrent topotential adversaries. While saying that the U.S. will build these super systems faster and better than

other nations, he acknowledged that a new arms race is already under way. "It will be a new MAD for the 21st century,"he said, referring to the Cold War-era acronym for Mutually Assured Destruction, the idea that a nuclear first strike wouldtrigger an equally deadly response. It's commonly held that this knowledge has essentially prevented any rational statefrom launching a nuclear attack. Likewise, Doctor Canton said he believes rational nation states, considering thisimminent technology explosion, will see the futility of nation-on-nation warfare in the near future. Plus there's the "socio-economic linking of the global market system." "The fundamental macroeconomics on the planet favor peace, security,capitalism and prosperity," he said. Doctor Canton projects that nations, including those not currently allied, will worktogether in using these smart technologies to prevent non-state actors from engaging in disruptive and deadly acts. As afuturist, Doctor Canton and his team study and predict many things, but their main area of expertise -- and the one inwhich he's personally most interested -- is advanced and emerging technology. "I see that as the key catalyst of strategicchange on the planet, and it will be for the next 100 years," he said. He focuses on six specific technology areas: "nano,bio, IT, neuro, quantum and robotics;" those he expects to converge in so powerful a way. Within the informationtechnology arena, Doctor Canton said systems must create "meaningful data," which can be validated and acted upon."Knowledge engineering for the analyst and the warfighter is a critical competency that we need to get our arms around,"he said. "Having an avalanche of data is not going to be helpful." Having the right data is. "There's no way for the humanoperator to look at an infinite number of data streams and extract meaning," he said. "The question then is: How do we

augment the human user with advanced artificial intelligence, better software presentation and better visual frameworks,to create a system that is situationally aware and can provide decision options for the human operator, faster than thehuman being can?" He said he believes the answers can often be found already in what he calls 'edge cultures.' "I wouldlook outside of the military. What are they doing in video games? What are they doing in healthcare? What about thefinancial industry?" Doctor Canton said he believes that more sophisticated artificial intelligence applications will transformbusiness, warfare and life in general. Many of these are already embedded in systems or products, he says, even ifpeople don't know it.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123162500http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123162500http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123162500


11/18

Finally the impacts ---

Economic collapse causes nuclear war- extinctionBroward 9 ((Member of Triond) http://newsflavor.com/opinions/will-an-economic-collapse-kill-you/)Now its time to look at the consequences of a failing world economy.

With five offical nations having nuclear weapons, and four morelikely to have them there could be major consequences of anotherworld war. The first thing that will happen after an economiccollapse will be war over resources. The United States currency will become useless and willhave no way of securing reserves. The United States has little to no capacity to produce oil, it is totatlly dependent on

foreign oil. If the United States stopped getting foreign oil, thegovernment would go to no ends to secure more, if there were a warwith any other major power over oil, like Russia or China, these warswould most likely involve nuclear weapons.Once one nationlaunches a nuclear weapon, there would of course be retaliation, andwith five or more countries with nuclear weapons there would most

likely be a world nuclear war. The risk is so high that acting to savethe economy is the most important issue facing us in the 21stcentury.

Slow growth makes wars inevitableStrauss-Kahn 9 Dominique, Ph. D in Economics from Universite Paris X, Manging Director of the IMF,Emeritus Professor of economics at Sciences Po, Former Minister of Economy and Finance of France, Economic Stability,Economic Cooperation, and Peacethe Role of the IMF,http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2009/102309.htmThe stakes are particularly high in the low-income countries. Our colleagues at the United Nations and World Bank thinkthat up to 90 million people might be pushed into extreme poverty as a result of this crisis. In many areas of the world,

what is at stake is not only higher unemployment or lower purchasing power, but life and death itself. Economic

marginalization and destitution could lead to social unrest, politicalinstability, a breakdown of democracy, or war . In a sense, our collective efforts to fightthe crisis cannot be separated from our efforts guard social stability and to secure peace. This is particularly important inlow-income countries. War might justifiably be called development in reverse. War leads to death, disability, disease,

and displacement of population. War increases poverty. War reduces growth potential bydestroying infrastructure as well as financial and human capital. Wardiverts resources toward violence, rent-seeking, and corruption. Warweakens institutions. War in one country harms neighboring countries,including through an influx of refugees. Most wars since the 1970s have been wars withinstates. It is hard to estimate the true cost of a civil war. Recent research suggests that one year of conflict can knock 2-2 percentage points off a countrys growth rate. And since the average civil war lasts 7 years, that means an economythat is 15 percent smaller than it would have been with peace. Of course, no cost can be put on the loss of life or thegreat human suffering that always accompanies war. The causality also runs the other way. Just as wars devastate the

economy, a weak economy makes a country more prone to war. Theevidence is quite clear on this pointlow income or slow economicgrowth increases the risk of a country falling into civil conflict. Povertyand economic stagnation lead people to become marginalized, withouta stake in the productive economy. With little hope of employment or adecent standard of living, they might turn instead to violent activities.Dependence on natural resources is also a risk factorcompetition for control over these resources can trigger conflictand income from natural resources can finance war. And so we can see a vicious circlewar makes economic conditions
http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2009/102309.htmhttp://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2009/102309.htmhttp://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2009/102309.htmhttp://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2009/102309.htm


12/18


13/18

Contention Two is Tiny Robots:

Not extra-topical; plan is key to each of the scenarios ---

1. The plan is key to tech transfer, which is key to effectivedevelopment

Khan 11 (Mohammud, The author is Senior Vice President, Professional Service Industries, Inc., Herndon, Virginia.,Nanotechnology in Transportation: Evolution of a Revolutionary Technology,http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews277.pdf)

Increased Understanding Nanotechnology will prove one of the most researched areas in the next decades.Activities will intensify in technology transfer and in thecommercialization of nanomaterials and nanosensors. Some oftheconcerns associated with nanotechnology such as cost and the potential health hazards ofsuperfine nanomaterials

will receive increased attention.

Increasedunderstanding of nanotechnology will improve the acceptance and applicationof nanomodified materials and sensors. Nanotechnology-derived innovations promise to increase the service life oftransportation infrastructure to 100 and perhaps 150 years.

2. Effective regulations dont exist in the squo; the plan makesnanotech development safe internationally

Reynolds 3 (Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Beauchamp Brogan Distinguished Professor of Law, University of TennesseeCollege of Law. J.D., Yale Law School, 1985; B.A., University of Tennessee, 1982, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology

Volume 17, Number 1 Fall 2003 DRAFT Do not reference - formatting and pagination may not correspond to printedversion NANOTECHNOLOGY AND REGULATORY POLICY: THREE FUTURES,http://pjmedia.com/instapundit-archive/lawrev/HJOLTnano.pdf)

If nanotechnology is not outlawed altogether or limited to militaryapplications, then we must look to other models. Some research, ofcourse, is largely unregulated except with regard to generally applic a- ble laws having to do withsafety (e.g., research into laser technology). Nanotechnology regulation could follow thesame idea, but its potential dangers make such an approach politically unlikely, regard- less of its merits.73Amore plausible alternative is a modest form of regulation coupled withrobust civilian research an approach that has been applied successfully to biotechnology, or

recombinant DNA research, as it used to be called. Though some have criticized the regulatory regimegoverning biotechnology as overly intrusive, it has largely preventedmisuse, maintained public confidence, and allowed science to proceed(yielding many new drugs and treatments). In fact, it has also created an entirely new high-technology industry sector.74

As one might expect, this approach is championed by those who believe the benefits of nanotechnology justify

development in the field (e.g., scientists, advocates for the seriously ill, et cetera).

Scenario one is warming:

Nanotech solves emissionsMillennium Project of the American Council for the United NationsUniversity 7, Global Energy Scenarios Scenario 2. EnvironmentalBacklash. August 08, 2007http://www.millennium-project.org/millennium/energy-env-backlash.html accessed July 12, 2008
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews277.pdfhttp://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews277.pdfhttp://pjmedia.com/instapundit-archive/lawrev/HJOLTnano.pdfhttp://pjmedia.com/instapundit-archive/lawrev/HJOLTnano.pdfhttp://pjmedia.com/instapundit-archive/lawrev/HJOLTnano.pdfhttp://pjmedia.com/instapundit-archive/lawrev/HJOLTnano.pdfhttp://pjmedia.com/instapundit-archive/lawrev/HJOLTnano.pdfhttp://pjmedia.com/instapundit-archive/lawrev/HJOLTnano.pdfhttp://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews277.pdf


14/18

Although this prevents further damage, it does not solve the problem of global warming. Additional ways had to be found

to sequester the excessive global warming gases. Green Smart engineershave been testing nanotechnology applications to exhaust systems to reduce CO 2 emissions.The use of nanotech on the surface of buildings to strip carbon from the air is a source forfuture molecular manufacturing applications. The massive tree plantings have helped, but they have only

reduced the growth rate of carbon in the atmosphere without turning it around. However, the uses ofadvanced composites, ceramics, nanotubes, plastics, and lightweight-steel have more than doubled theefficiency of cars and trucks, which has reduced emissions proportionally

And, runaway warming equals extinctionDeibel 7(Terry L. Professor of IR @ National War College, 2007. Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for AmericanStatecraft, Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today)

Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of anonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threatof global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthlylife depends.Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, andwhat was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one ofmore than 900 articles on climate change published in refereedscientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenicwarming is occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is virtuallyimpossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals ofglobal warming. Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, asthis sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and violent stormsacross the planet over the next century; climate change could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of

Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting muchfaster than expected, andworldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago; rising seatemperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes; NASAscientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a

close second; Earths warming climate is estimated to contribute to more

than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year as disease spreads;widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures.The world is slowly disintegrating, concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. Theycall it climate changebut we just call it breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until thebeginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, aboutdouble pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately toreduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much andhow serious the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of

1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs ofplants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation oflow-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or lessthe Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading

to a sea level of rise of 20 feetthat would cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp the southernthird of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village.Another catastrophiceffect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulationthat keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitudewould otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alonefrom moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But

the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, basedon positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the


15/18

atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surfacetemperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average globaltemperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into

the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that humankindscontinuingenhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing

Russian roulette with the earths climate and humanitys life supportsystem.At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, were just going to burn everythingup; were going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at thepoles, and then everything will collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclearwinter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both

countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War erasequivalentof nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supportedscientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional militarychallenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States,but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.

Scenario two is time travel:

Nanotech is key to harness wormholes and time travelPelletier 8Dick Pelletier, (futurist science and technology columnist), 2008 , April 14, PositiveFuturist.com,Timetravel will become reality in future, physicists say, Accessed 7/15/08, http://positivefuturist.com/archive/145.html

Although black holes and cosmic strings offer hope of traveling throughtime, most physicists believe that wormholes represent our best shot.Wormholes are theoretical shortcuts through space and time thatconnect two distant points, like a worm tunnel in an apple. CalTechs Kip Thorneshowed that we could control wormholes if we used an exotic form ofmatter, which experts believe might come fromphantom energy, a mysterious dark matter that comprises up to

seventy percent of the universe. Lisbon Universitys Francisco Lobo believes An advanced civilizationcould mine the phantom energy necessary to construct and sustain atraversable wormhole, making time travel possible. How would

civilization benefit from this wild technology? We could retrievescanned minds from lost loved ones the night before they died; uploadthem into new bodies allowing their lives to continue. We could alsosearch the future for dangers that might befall humanity, and thendevelop defenses. When might time travel become reality? Forward-thinkers believethat advanced nanotech, quantum computing, and artificial intelligencewill enable technologies necessary to harness wormholes within 200 to500years; so if life extension enthusiasts are correct, many people alive

today will experience time travel in their lifetime. And if someoneshould knock on your door one day and claim to be your great-great-great-great granddaughter from the future dont slam the door shecould be a time traveler.37


16/18

Time travel is the only way to avoid sun death the ultimate formof extinctionKaku 5 [Michio, professor of theoretical physics at the City University of New York, Could a hole in space save manfrom extinction?5-1-2005http://www.telegraph...e05.xml&page=5]Today, we believe that space arks might one day preserve life after the death of the Sun in five

billion years. But can you build a space ark to escape the death of the universe itself? The onlypossible way to avoid the death of the universe is to leave. Perhapscivilisations billions of years ahead of ours will harness enough energy to punch ahole in space and escape, in a hyper-dimensional space ark, to a newuniverse. Although it seems far-fetched, even preposterous, physicists have seriously considered thispossibility using the known laws of physics. Einstein's equations, for example, allow for the possibilityof "Einstein-Rosen bridges" connecting two parallel universes. (Imagine twohorizontal parallel sheets of paper connected by a thin vertical tube.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml;jsessionid=MZISTEGBQTIHRQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/connected/2005/01/05/ecrspace05.xml&page=5%5dhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml;jsessionid=MZISTEGBQTIHRQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/connected/2005/01/05/ecrspace05.xml&page=5%5dhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml;jsessionid=MZISTEGBQTIHRQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/connected/2005/01/05/ecrspace05.xml&page=5%5d


17/18

Contention Three is Solvency:

Nanotech infusion w/ surface transportation is keyKhan 11(Mohammud, The author is Senior Vice President, Professional Service Industries, Inc., Herndon, Virginia.,

Nanotechnology in Transportation: Evolution of a Revolutionary Technology,

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews277.pdf)Nanomodification of concrete is analogous to mod- ifying and controlling the genes and DNA in the human body.Nanomodification can change funda- mentally the rheology, the calcium-silicate-hydrate gel, and the kinetics of hydrationreactions to improve dramatically many of the properties of concrete, including its strength, ductility, shrinkage, and

durability (photo at upper left, this page).Applica- tion of nanotechnology-based sealersin the surface layer of concrete can produce an almost waterproofconcrete with strong resistance to many deterioration processes, such asreinforcing steel corrosion, sulfate attack, and alkalisilica reactivity. Nano-TiO2 has several beneficial applications in

transportation. Nanofibers incorporated into concrete can control theinitiation and propagation of nanocracks and can produce a crack-freeconcrete with substantially enhanced flexural strength. Newer generations ofconcrete materials, such as improved self-consoli- dating concrete, will emerge as the nanotechnology progresses andmatures. Nanotechnology will make concrete materials more acceptable by eliminating or reducing several limitations. Forexample, supplementary cementi- tious materials contribute to sustainable development but their properties developslowly because of delayed hydration reactions. The addition of nanocalcium carbonate (CaCO3) to cementitiousmaterials, however, can accelerate the hydration reactions and offset the disadvantages. Nanotitanium dioxide (TiO2)similarly can accelerate hydration reactions. In addition, concrete surfaces incorporating nanoparticles of TiO2 pow- der,which have photocatalytic properties, can con- vert nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a pollutant generally present in urban areasand in tunnels, to harmless nitrates (NO3) that are easily washed away by rain (photo, left). Modeling and Nanosensors

Advanced analytical techniques, such as computa- tional fluid dynamics modeling, will play an important role inpredicting and optimizing the composition and performance of nanotechnology- based concrete materials. Advancedmeasurement and testing techniquessuch as nanoindentation and atomic force acoustic microscopycapable ofcharacterizing materials at nanoscale similarly will play key roles in advancing nanotechnology in concrete (Figure 2,

page 6). Nanosensors composed of polymers, particles, conductors,computer chips, and photonic materials in nanosizes can be embeddedin concrete for quality assurancequality control, monitoring and

mea- suring the properties of fresh and hardened concrete in real timefrom project or central locations, allowing for corrective actions to betaken in a timely man- ner. Nanosensors also can be used to monitor the health of concrete elementsand systems and can generate warning signals when the condition of these elements and systems deteriorates below adefined threshold, whether from natural loading, exposure, or extreme events such as earthquakes, hurricanes, orterrorist attacks (photo, below).

Federal action is key massive investment is a prerequisiteLane & Kalil 5(Neal Lane, PhD and senior fellow in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute,Thomas Kalil, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology at UC Berkeley, The NationalNanotechnology Initiative: Present at the Creation Summer 2005http://www.issues.org/21.4/lane.html)

Still, as a commercial enterprise, nanotechnology is in its infancy. For example, companies are still

not able to reliably purchase high-quality nanotechnology building blocks such as nanotubes, metal oxide nanoparticles,and fullerenes. Whither the NNI? Although the NNI has made significant progress, we are concerned that federal fundingfor nanoscale S&E has been flat in recent years. The administrations FY 2006 budget, for example, actually proposes a

decrease in funding as compared to the level of support provided by Congress in FY 2005. We believe that there isa compelling case for sustained increases in federal funding fornanoscale S&E, particularly if this is done in the context of increased investments in the physical sciences andengineering more generally. First, federal agencies are still able to fund only a tinyfraction of the meritorious proposals that are submitted. In its most recentsolicitation for Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers, for example, NSF received 48 proposals and could fund only
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews277.pdfhttp://www.issues.org/21.4/lane.htmlhttp://www.issues.org/21.4/lane.htmlhttp://www.issues.org/21.4/lane.htmlhttp://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews277.pdf


18/18

6. Even when an agency does fund a proposal, the size and duration of the grant are often inadequate. Second, foreigngovernments are continuing to aggressively ramp up their investments in nanoscale S&E. Given that internationalleadership in nanotechnology is up for grabs, allowing U.S. funding to stagnate while foreign governments continue to

provide double-digit increases seems to us to be an incredibly risky strategy. Third, only the federalgovernment is in a position to support the long-term high-risk researchthat is beyond the time horizons of companies. Finally, researchers have demonstrated

the potential of nanotechnology to make important contributions to a wide range of national goals and key economicsectors, such as health, clean energy, information technology, new materials, national and homeland security, sustainabledevelopment, manufacturing, and space exploration. Stagnant or declining budgets will make it difficult to pursue theseand other opportunities. Below are just a few of the areas where new and expanded initiatives in nanoscale S&E wouldmake a big difference.

nanomaterials aff

Documents