Exploring space instead of feeding africans or poor people in general is more preferable!
Here follow the benefits of space exploration and why you should be grateful for this step:
- more accurate forecasts because they can use satellites to monitor the pressure of wind and temperature
-mining minerals on the moon and planets
- learning more about the universe and its creation
-Broading our horizons and understanding the universe
-reaching finally a conclusion on whether we are alone in the universe
- Colonization-very important as we have to fid a solution to overpopulation
-Protect ourselves ad our planet (NASA"s Earth Science division, NASA-funded research that scans the skies for dangerous asteroids and and missions to asteroids that teach us how we might be able to divert them from a collision course, should the need arise)
-Answering the big questions
-Inspire people and especially the young ones who have
Furthermore, one of the largest ways we benefit from space research is the inventions which we enjoy on a day to day basis which stem directly from NASA research or other space research. (They are many so I decided to make a new category and not just add them in the "advantages of space exploration" list). Some of these are:
- the fire-proof clothing used by fire-fighters
- safety grooving on roads, which helps defer water from the road surface and has reduced road accidents by an estimated 85% since it was first implemented.
- baby formula - a bioscience company in Marylin was testing the potential of algea as a food source in space exploration, and found that one of the algea additives contained aspects close to human breast milk.
- scratch proof lenses - the film used in the average Lens for glasses was actually developed by NASA
- medical imaging
- smoke detectors - the first ever smoke detector was invented by NASA and used in 'skylab' the first ever space station.
All in all, space research has helped us become what we are now and become more developed as beings. And you prefer to toss all these benefits in the trash because of some poor children that don't have food. Haven't you ever thought that giving them food might not solve the problem of famine? Haven't you ever thought that the only thing we'll eventually do is a hole in the water? We'll quit sending space crafts in the universe and our effort to develop more, so as to provide a FEW people with food for a FEW days! So what? To solve this problem we need to help them become independent, have a good governor or government and develop their own civilization instead of waiting for us to go there and give them a bowl of boiled porridge. And this is AIN'T gonna happen!! Do you know why? Because the USA and other powerful countries want them to continue living this way in order to extract oil and other natural sources from their grounds and sell them weapons to kill each other! Because there are countries that benefit from their way of living and won't let such a thing happen! THIS IS WHY!
But the problem of famine can't be solved for other reasons, too.
First, consider this fact:
"Almost half the world " over three billion people " live on less than $2.50 a day. So let"s say we decide to go all out and use massive government tax revenues to pay for new aid. Assume with this tax money we give each poor person another $3 per day. We spend:
$3 x 3 billion people x 365 days = $3.3 trillion per year
$3.3 trillion is the same as all US federal taxes collected in a year. $3.3 trillion is about the size of the entire economy of Germany. And how much did we lift the poor? Instead of each of the 3 billion poor having on average $2.50 per day, each now has $5.50. Yes, that"s better, but the people are still very poor.
But keep in mind too that spending $3.3 trillion per year to help the poor was meant as an extreme example of trying to lift the poor noticeably " and this spending level is completely unrealistic."*
If history has shown us anything, it"s that the poor will always be with us:
The vast swaths of destitute people in this world are largely a result of corrupt and incompetent governments that habitually mismanage the economies of entire countries. For example, millions have starved to death in North Korea, while the people in well-run South Korea next door live in abundance. In Zimbabwe, once the bread basket of Africa, in a generation strongman Robert Mugabe destroyed the economy of the country. And many, many other countries of the world are horribly run places too.
This map (http://www.transparency.org...) from Transparency International shows corruption rankings for countries around the world. The countries colored in any shade of red are very corrupt places, and deep poverty often accompanies this kind of corruption. Another factor in how a country does at alleviating poverty is it ranking for economic freedom, as captured in this map. Note how most of the countries that rank poorly on the corruption map also rank poorly on the map for economic freedom. Governments that are really bad in one way tend to be bad in others too.
To be clear, corruption and a lack of robust economic freedom in a country does not always lock a country into poverty. After all, China ranks poorly on both measures yet China has managed to grow steadily for decades. But even if there are exceptions to the rule, in general high corruption in government and a lack of economic freedom will tend to keep a nation"s people poor. In the case of China, the central rulers have made a focused effort to sustain high economic growth. This effort, along with the Chinese cultural knack for being good at business, at least for now has offset the otherwise bad government in China.
It should be noted that China for years had much worse government than today, one that completely stifled economic freedom. Between 1958 and 1962 forty five million people starved to death in China due to Mao"s communist policies. So any country, if the government gets bad enough, will have its people mired in terrible poverty.
It"s important to note that you will never find a country that ranks low in corruption and high economic freedom " and the people there are not quickly leaving the worst kinds of poverty behind. Good government is the only sure way out of poverty for the people of any country.
In cases where we can provide a net benefit to the economically abused people of badly run countries, we can and should provide aid to help the poor souls living there. But rushing in ever more aid to help the destitute people in these countries is not a long term solution. The idea that if we would only spend say another $50 billion, or $100 billion, or $500 billion per year this will somehow allow us to band-aid over the underlying problem of awful governments is just wishful thinking. But this is the implication for what is needed by those who shout that more aid is always the answer.
At some point spending more on trying to save the world"s poor is like trying to treat cancer by providing bigger and newer bandages. No amount of money can make a significant difference in many countries until the governments themselves " the cancers " are reformed or replaced. Rapid economic growth is the only proven solution to ending widespread poverty, and this is only reliably enabled by having a decently managed free market economy.
So should we take the $40 billion per year for the Enterprise and instead give it out to the poor of the world in one form of aid or another? The truth is we can never spend enough to lift the billions of people living in poverty when the fundamental problem is that they are ruled over by bad governments. We delude ourselves if we think we can simply spent a lot more money through our government and make a significant difference.
Some even argue that we in the developed nations are hurting the poor with our aid:
Economist Dambisa Moyo writes: "Yet evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that aid to Africa has made the poor poorer, and the growth slower. " Over the past 60 years at least $1 trillion of development-related aid has been transferred from rich countries to Africa. Yet real per-capita income today is lower than it was in the 1970s, and more than 50% of the population " over 350 million people " live on less than a dollar a day, a figure that has nearly doubled in two decades." **
To sum up, in terms of science, 99.999 per cent of all that we need to know is off-world. It"s inconceivable that we don"t send more human beings out there to find out more about it. "What about the poor," or "what about the slums," is a POOR (pun intended) reason to avoid a project of this kind, not to mention that we'll NOT SOLVE ANY SOCIAL PROLEM BY JUST FEEDING SOME POOR PEOPLE! We have to face the CAUSE of the problem and not its effects!
I would like to finish with a quote of a very famous novelist, poet and playwright that I admire:
"In spite of the opinions of certain narrow-minded people, who would shut up the human race upon this globe, as within some magic circle which it must never outstep, we shall one day travel to the moon, the planets, and the stars, with the same facility, rapidity, and certainty as we now make the voyage from Liverpool to New York."
Jules Verne, From the Earth to the Moon, 1865***
I would like to thank pro for creating such an interesting debate, I was very curious how you’d argue this point. Taking care of people living in the third world is more important explore the universe and organise space travels because you're essentially letting people die due to issues we helped create through exploitation of these countries in the past. It is both unfair and immoral to let this happen. While space exploration is important, there are areas of research which I think need more time, money and resources invested in such as renewable energy and agriculture
“mining minerals on the moon and planets” It’s not even financially viable to mine some resources on earth or the moon, let alone in other planets. Even if find resources on other plant due to space exploration mining these resources would be near impossible and financially enviable, for example NASA says that the average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission. Rocket fuel is $4000 per gram (http://www.chemicool.com...) and will most likley get more expensive in future since it is a dwindelling resource. Think of the time and costs involved in locating these resources, mining them and transporting them back to earth. Doesn’t make sense to attempt.
“learning more about the universe and its creation..Broading our horizons and understanding the universe”
“reaching finally a conclusion on whether we are alone in the universe”
“Colonization-very important as we have to fid a solution to”
“Protect ourselves ad our planet (NASA"s Earth Science division, NASA-funded research that scans the skies for dangerous asteroids and and missions to asteroids that teach us how we might be able to divert them from a collision course, should the need arise) .” Not sure how this links to space exploration if it’s to protect the planet. Difference between NASA researching asteroids and space exploration.
“one of the largest ways we benefit from space research is the inventions which we enjoy on a day to day basis which stem directly from NASA research or other space research” Granted, space research has benifited our lives today due to inventions created, but in the same way as have wars which have also lead to greater technological and medical advances which we enjoy on a day to day basis. The production of penicillin was first funded by the UK government during WWII to create better antibiotics for soldiers. The first computers were also first developed due to WWII , as did the internet itself as a military project in a way. This doesn’t mean we should be investing in wars.
“But the problem of famine can't be solved for other reasons, too.” Earth is facing many problems, pollution, fuel, famine, dwindling resources etc… money would be far better spent here to solve these problems and the problems surrounding poverty.
Famine is a threat to all counties worldwide in the near future due to the effects of global warming and climate change if these threats aren’t (best) confronted by space exploration. Just observe the Colorado 'dust bowl' due to a drowth cause by climate change.
“And you prefer to toss all these benefits in the trash because of some poor children that don't have food. Haven't you ever thought that giving them food might not solve the problem of famine? Haven't you ever thought that the only thing we'll eventually do is a hole in the water?”
Yes, giving them food doesn’t prevent famine but it prevents their deaths. This shows a very inhuman lack of empathy if you think that making the lives of people in the first world better is more important that preventing needless deaths in LEDCs.
Space exploration would further the gap between MEDC which can afford space travel and LEDC’s which can’t afford to become space faring, even if they did they would do this in neglect of the needs of their civilians.
“And how much did we lift the poor? Instead of each of the 3 billion poor having on average $2.50 per day, each now has $5.50.” Personally I think this argument Is slightly off topic because it refers to financial aid and not food aid but if you want to start talking about aid in general I don't really mind. Anyway, to us in MEDCs and extra $3 per day seems like a very small about of money, however this increase in profit can be very significant for people in LEDCs, and what you can by for three dolars more in an LEDC is far more than you could with $3 in America. For example $5 in America buys 7lbs of rice, in Afgnistan it buys twice as much. In Ethiopia $5 buys 31lbs potatoes, in the US this is just 7.5lbs(http://www.therichest.com...)
“If history has shown us anything, it"s that the poor will always be with us” History shown us many thing that are unfair, there always being poor people doesn’t justify there being countries where all most everyone is rich and countries where almost everyone is incredibly poor by comparison, so poor they can find it difficult to feed their own children as shown by WFP which reported that poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five (3.1 million children each year).
Corruption and aid leads to poverty arguments
for being so polite and for accepting this debate!
Now let"s start with the rebuttals as I have not something else to add:
"Taking care of people living in the third world is more important explore the universe and organise space travels because you're essentially letting people die due to issues we helped create through exploitation of these countries in the past."
Okayyy, and what makes you believe that even if we stop space travels, the exploitation of these countries will end, too? If we stop space exploration the only thing that will change about the exploitation of these countries is the usage of the natural resources we get. We won"t use them to send people and robots in the universe but we"ll use them to do other
things. The exploitation of these countries will not stop if we quit space travelling.
"It"s not even financially viable to mine some resources on earth or the moon, let alone in other planets."
Oh! This is strange to hear as we have already planned to do so: "At Planetary Resources, our mission is to prospect and mine asteroids to address one of the paramount problems faced on Earth and beyond: resource scarcity. With our first launch scheduled for next year, our work towards asteroid mining is in-progress." (http://www.planetaryresources.com...)
You can watch this video in order to understand better: https://www.youtube.com...
In order to plan a launched we must be sure that this is financially viable.
"If there is life on other plants it is likely that we would be able to discover it due to current technology"
Exactly, and by technology we mean space travelling.How can you be so sure that there is no life on other planets??Do you know how we reached the conclusion that there is no life on the moon and most likely not on the mars, too?
BY SENDING MANYY SPACE CRAFTS THERE AND COLLECTING EVIDENCE!!
This is how. This is the technology needed.This process took a lot of years and we needed to send many many space crafts there.And we"re not sure about mars yet because we have not sent a manned space craft, yet. This means that we have more work to do.
"Besides population will fall 2050, far before a colony could be built. By then they"ll be far less of an issue with
overpopulation well before colonises could ever be set up"
Now about the problem of overpopulation, I didn"t say that the purpose of the colonization would be to solve this problem.
I just said that except for its advantages, it would help a lot. The world population may be decreased but the problem will still exist. Specifically, The current world population of 7.2 billion is projected to increase by1 billion over the next 12 years and reach 9.6 billion by 2050, according to a United Nations report which points out that growth will be mainly in developing
countries, with more than half in Africa. (https://www.un.org...) So, this means that the population growth might be slower than before but it actually stills growing.
A colonization could not, of course,solve this problem but it could play a major role in its confrontation. But I
emphasize that this is not the main purpose of colonizing other planets.
"We currently can"t even afford a base on the moon,let alone a colony[..]This is unrealistic and It would be far easier, cheaper and safer to create villages on the bottom of the ocean than on the moon."
Reallyyy? Haven"t you heard about NASA"s plans to colonize mars?More than 200,000 men and women from around the world responded to the first call for astronauts (http://www.mars-one.com... )Haven"t you heard that Russia is planning to colonize the moon? The first stage is planned to start in 2016 and last until 2025, but the project is not submitted to the government yet. ( http://rt.com...)If it was "currently unaffordable" to colonize another planet would they plan to make it?
Colonizing other planets and colonizing the ocean are two different things that offer different things, too.You cannot
say that we don"t have to colonize other planets because it is easier for us to colonize the ocean. It"s not the same thing. So, it is not right to compare those two things let alone to argue that the one could replace the other.The
one has to do only with the confrontation of overpopulation while the other offer us many more benefits.
"History has shown that when societies gain more money, education levels increase leading to more technological advances.Giving Africans aid would actually advance technology by giving more students the chance to become educated."
The amount of money that will arrive in these countries will only be enough for building schools and providing basic
education to children.But this is not enough!:
To start with, the education provided to children will not be enough to invent something new that we need for two simple reasons:
1)The basic education includes something a little bit better than learning how to
write, read and solve some mathematical problems (just think the knowledge we
gain until we graduate from junior high-school but there it won"t have the same
effects because of reasons that we can all imagine). So, it is almost impossible
for someone to invent something that here, in the "first world" as you said in
the comments, we have been trying to invent with much more knowledge and
technology available for many years and haven"t manage to do so yet. Since they
don"t have even the basic, if they would manage to make an invention, it would
probably be something that we already have.
2)In order to have technological advancements, we don"t need just some knowledge.Other things are also needed. For example, if there is war in a country, everyone would be focused on either how to survive or how to kill his/her enemies.
Another example: If there is a dictator who makes everyone work hard 20 hours a day for a slice of bread then no one would think about new inventions. So, in order for any changes to come, there has to be favorable conditions, too.And,
unfortunately, in these countries there are not. This why there are these problems because as I explained in round 2, these countries are not rules by a good governor or government.
3)Even if there will be some new inventions by the education provided to poor people,these inventions cannot be compared to the inventions and technological advancements we have gained thanks to space travelling. So, it would not be wise to argue that we can stop space exploration because we can also have some new inventions by educating poor people.
"Not sure how this links to space exploration if it"s to protect the planet."
I"m sorry but I didn"t get it. This invention help us detect asteroids and find ways to divert them from a collision course. So, it contributes to our safety.
"Granted, space research has benifited our lives today due to inventions created, but in the same way as have wars which have also lead to greater technological and medical advances which we enjoy on a day to day basis. [..]This doesn"t mean we should be investing in wars."
This opinion is wrong. It doesn"t mean that everything that offer us some new inventions is good and we must invest in it.In order to decide whether you should invest in something you have to take into consideration all the advantages and
disadvantages and see which are more important.For example, there are people who believe that wars" advantages outweigh their disadvantages and their consequences are overall beneficial to our society.:
Please take a look at these articles:
In this case, I think that space exploration"s advantages(that include these important inventions) outweigh the advantages of feeding poor people and its result is more advantageous to our society than the result of giving poor people food, while you believe the opposite.
"money would be far better spent here to solve these problems and the problems surrounding poverty."
In round 2 I tried to explain as better as I could that poverty is something that can"t be solved unless there is a good governor or government. But unfortunately, you did not get my point. Poverty is not a problem to be solved just be giving some people some food.
"This shows a very inhuman lack of empathy if you think that making the lives of people in the first world better is more
important that preventing needless deaths in LEDCs."
Just preventing some deaths does not make any difference.! This is what I wanted you to realize in round 2! But as I said, I
might haven"t explained it so well. New people will be born every day and they will suffer from famine ,too. It is impossible to give all these people food to be enough for their whole life. If you want to make something to help these countries, you can try to make them have a good government or governor.This way we could make space travels and the conditions of living in these countries will become better, too. If you want to face any problem you have to confront its CAUSE and not its EFFECTS.
Now, I want to make something clear. I can"t offer you solutions on HOW to do that. I just inform you that this is the only way to make a change that really counts.
"History shown us many thing that are unfair, there always being poor people doesn"t justify there being countries where all most everyone is rich and countries where almost everyone is incredibly poor by comparison"
That"s what I"m talking about.This depends on their ruler and the way he/she governs the country.
PS: Sorry for the capital letters. Just wanted to emphasize ^_^
In retrospect, I think I should had done more research for this but didn’t because of the question’s phrasing and the grammatical error (sorry) and emphasis on ‘africans’ which made me think you were a troll :P
" ...overpopulation, I didn"t say that the purpose of the colonization would be to solve this problem....United Nations report which points out that growth will be mainly in developing
"...poverty is something that can"t be solved unless there is a good governor or government...Poverty is not a problem to be solved just be giving some people some food."
"Just preventing some deaths does not make any difference...New people will be born every dayand they will suffer from famine ,too."
This is why we must spend on aid to prevent deaths in the future.I have to go to bed now (it's 11) so can't finish :(
Vote con if you dislike the fact people are still dying of starvation in the 21st century while others are obese.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|