The Instigator
Lucyyy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Donjaundebater1212
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Colonizing space

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,018 times Debate No: 35314
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Lucyyy

Pro

Colonizing space is super important for the human race. Colonizing space would help solve earth's overcrowding-ness, economic problems, survival from nuclear warfare or NEOs, global warming and evolution. In order to live long and survive colonizing space is important.
Donjaundebater1212

Con

I accept. As the Con It will be my burden to simply prove that Colonizing space is not the answer to earths problems. I cannot deny that what Pro states is true, all the issues presented are problems our world faces. However It would be counter productive and unwise to look to the stars for our worlds salvation. Therefore, the Con should win this debate after I have completed the task of proving to the Pro and the voters that Space colonization is indeed not possible and causes more problems than it answers.

My arguments are as follows:

A. Population: Population growth does not equal extinction-to many variables.
- [1] population growth is stagnating due to lower birth rates. Half the women in the world are now having two children or fewer-not just in rich countries, but in Iran and parts of India, Burma and Brazil, Vietnam and South Africa. This is simply happening out of choice as opposed to compulsion.
-[2] The overall probability of human extinction is very low, with or without climate change. These estimates need to be tempered by the fact that none were based upon rigor's analytic methods, only subjective judgement. It is needless to say that large population casualties are possible, however the probability of true and final human extinction is probably much lower despite all the risks listed above.
-The Pro forgets that because population growth is not a constant variable, he cannot assume that population growth will inevitably cause an overflow of people.

B. Economy: Economic problems are cyclical,Empiric prove - Bad investments are the only thing that causes long term issues.
-Empirically, economic falls and rises are scattered throughout history. An economy can repair itself based on the currency and the economic policies it lives by. For example, the great depression followed world war II which although it was a waring period, was the cause of much economic growth in the United states. Bad investments also are the cause of economic collapses and ditches.
-[3] Launch costs are too high. The cost of moving one kilogram of payload from earth to the vicinity of mars is $34,000 . NASA called for a Mars rocket 1000 metric tons which corresponds to $340 billion! One rocket! A manned colony would need much resources after construction which would require many more launches. Launches at this rate are a huge consumer of natural resources, time and money. This would be a total waste of our resources.
- [4] Research in this field would require more resources which would result in "Asteroid mining" However as china has 95% of the worlds rare earth metals used in high-tech machinery such as satellites. If we were to start mining them, China or the CCP (Chinese communist party) would become threatened as it has staked its future on economic growth largely on resource sales.
- [5] CCP instability causes WMD war as the CCP will do anything to stay alive, even if it must kill millions of people to remain on top.
-All in all, the Pro cannot claim the economy improves with space colonizing due to all the obstacles in the way of doing so. Its just impractical.

C. Nuclear war: Nuclear war is not inevitable. History proves it.
- There never has been a nuclear war. Only standoffs. "Cold war"
-MAD checks (Mutually assured destruction)
-The pro causes his own impact by going into space for resources due to how much will be needed to create space colonies and thus threatens the CCP which will inevitably result in a nuclear arms race to threaten America to stop mining NEO's.
-[6] "MAD, of course, is an evolutionary defense strategy based on the concept that neither the United States nor its enemies will ever start a nuclear war because the other side will retaliate massively and unacceptably. MAD is a product of the 1950s" US doctrine of massive retaliation, and despite attempts to redefine it in contemporary terms like flexible response and nuclear deterrence, it has remained the central theme of American defense planning for well over three decades.2 But MAD was developed during a time of unreliable missile technology and was based on a mortal fear of Communism, aggravated by ignorance of an unknown enemy that lurked behind an iron curtain. Times have changed. Missile guidance improvements have eliminated the need for multiple targeting by redundant weapon systems. More importantly, our enemies have changed as have our fears about Communist domination. It is time to rethink our baseline defense strategy and the doctrine behind it."

D. Asteroids: Not a threat to us, but rather to outer space colonies.
-[7] Asteroids are a threat to outer space colonies due to the planets closest to colonize have little or no atmosphere in which meteors would deteriorate before impact distorting the impact. Here on earth we have multiple layers of atmospheres which protect our planet from a constant bombardment of meteors. Rockets in this cause actually pose more of a threat to earth as when a rocket launches it leaves behind "debris" in near earth orbit which are more likely to fall to earth intact thus causing a larger impact. If the Pros plan is launched, then more rockets result in more space debris and thus trigger his own impact once more.

E. Global warming: Global warming is good and not human caused.
-Global warming is cyclical.
-[8] Plants perform better with increased CO2. Saying carbon dioxide emissions were good for crops. "One of the really good things about CO2 is that plants perform better under stress (drought, etc.) with increased levels of CO2," Rep. Larry Powell, R-Garden City, said in a letter disseminated to the media. Powell said a recent study shows that over the next 50 years, "atmospheric CO2 enrichment will boost world agricultural output by about 50 percent."
-[9]CO2 in the last century has helped increase agricultural productivity. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity.

F. Tech fails, years away.
- I feel this is self explanatory... We don't currently have any Terra forming machines to create atmospheres or mine asteroids...Or build colonies on other planets.

In conclusion Con should win for proving why Space colonization is neither possible or the answer to our problems.
Debate Round No. 1
Lucyyy

Pro

Lucyyy forfeited this round.
Donjaundebater1212

Con

As the Pro has Neglected to contest any of my previous arguments I ask the voters to Please extend all my arguments to this round as well, Please take note of the main points:

A. Population: Population growth does not equal extinction-to many variables.
B. Economy: Economic problems are cyclical,Empiric prove - Bad investments are the only thing that causes long term issues.
C. Nuclear war: Nuclear war is not inevitable. History proves it.
D. Asteroids: Not a threat to us, but rather to outer space colonies.
E. Global warming: Global warming is good and not human caused.
F. Tech fails, years away.

Any questions about these points, please refer to the argument above where they are explained more thoroughly.
The Con should win for proving the Pros proposal to be wrong and impractical.
-p.s the sources are in the comment section, sorry guys :P
Debate Round No. 2
Lucyyy

Pro

I would just like to say that colonizing space or exploring space itself is not a bad idea. I don't think people should reject this notion of colonizing space. Is it a bad idea? Definitely not! Should it be done? Of course it should. I don't think there is anything wrong with colonizing space. One should be smart about it of course. You can't just said random people to live on the moon. Especially people who care not even now about our colony/civilization here on Earth.

"Population growth does not equal extinction-to many variables." I totally agree that it doesn't, but population growth should be acknowledged. Also i'd like to make it clear that when I say colonizing space, I don't mean now in this year I mean in the future just how you've said "Tech fails, YEARS AWAY." Since I said that, population growth wont be a problem tomorrow, but in years to come. Space colonizing should be considered for future population growth problems.

Does humanity deserve to live long and prosper?
Many would say no many would say yes. The faith of humanity depends on how or where it abides. The dispersal of the human species is necessary. You've convinced me though that colonizing space isnt all that necessary, but I dont think it should be done.
Donjaundebater1212

Con

Ladies and gentlemen, Unless you have decided already on your vote please take my final comments into consideration regarding my arguments and my opponents *only* argument.

My opponent seems to just be stating that colonizing space is a good idea and can help all man kind if done successfully. Of course it is, nothing man kind has ever set out to do would be as astronomical as an accomplishment such as this. However, she forgets that this is a debate and therefore must contest my arguments rather than conceding them. Although because I do seem to see the beginning of some arguments in the Pros previous post, I will simply contest these and proceed to my conclusion.

The pro states that man kind needith not colonize space this year but in the future. However, will the resources needed to go forth with such tasks still be present? I'd rather doubt it. As I presented in my earlier arguments, there is much needed to successfully "planet hop". Whatever amount of resources are available now, may not be present later which could be a serious setback to undergo such a task. Yes, my opponent does not mean today, but then when? Time waits for no man and greed shows no mercy.

No, space colonizing should not be considered for future population growth problems.

Does humanity deserve to prosper? Of course it does! Personally I don't see it prospering very long with the Pros plan of action however.

On one last note before the conclusion I would like to point out the Pros last statement practically forfeiting this entire debate: "You've convinced me though that colonizing space isn't all that necessary, but I don't think it should be done." sorry Pro, just saying.

In conclusion, space colonization is not the answer to the earths economic, political and growth problems due to several reasons which need be solved before space colonization can be pursued. I ask the voters to please vote within the confines of this debate despite what you may personally know on this subject which would be beneficial to either side. The Con should win for disputing all the reasons that the Pro provided as to why space colonization should be perused and for better conduct and responding in all three rounds. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Lucyyy 3 years ago
Lucyyy
I will comment shortly. Sorry for the late.
Posted by Donjaundebater1212 3 years ago
Donjaundebater1212
I forgot to add my scources in the last round
1. Fred pearce, enviornmental consultant.
2.Bruce Tonn , Department of political science.
3. Bryan Laubscher, Los Alamos National Laboratory
4. Daniel Abebe and Jonathan Masur, Assistant Professors of Law, University of Chicago
5. San Renxing, Writer for "Epoch Times"
6. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...
7.Scott Rothschild, reporter in Kansas since 1998, and prior to that he covered news in Texas as a newspaper reporter and later with The Associated Press.
8.Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies,
No votes have been placed for this debate.