The Instigator
Brendan21
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
whatledge
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

Human expansion into space is a must

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2010 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,697 times Debate No: 12572
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Brendan21

Pro

For this debate I assert that humans will have to expand into space one day, and the sooner the better. Humans should begin to terraform Mars, and start to invest massive amounts of money towards space-oriented technology.
whatledge

Con

I thank Pro for instigating this debate.

I assert that Human expansion into space is unnecessary. My opponent has not stated the reasons as to why we should expand and colonize space, so I have nothing to refute thus far. I ask my opponent to offer further argumentation in Round 2, where I shall offer refutation and counter arguments in exchange.

I look forward to an exciting debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Brendan21

Pro

I thank Con for accepting my debate. Allow me to start my arguments.

1) In sure human survival.
Expanding to as many planets as possible will subsequently give humans a much greater chance of survival. At the current moment, we are on one planet, and if said planet is destroyed, humans will be extinct. One day, if roughly 5 billion years, our sun will no longer be stable enough for humans to remain on earth. That is the most definite way the earth will end, however huge asteroids, hostile aliens, and abnormal solar flares also have to potential to end our species. Another end to the earth, as we know it anyway, is the destruction of the moon. If we expand, we will also have multiple chances at how to take care of environments, and not destroying ourselves.

2) Discovery habitable worlds
Once we terraform Mars, we will proceed to terraform an planets and moons in our solar system that can be terraformed, however once this is done, we will need to continue outward and expand to our galaxy. We will do this by first scouting for habitable planets and terraformable planets. As we expand into space, the chances of finding alien life will become greater and greater. If these aliens are friendly, then it will be one of the most important discoveries of human kind. If they are hostile, we will learn ahead of time, before they reach earth, so we will have a heads up of what to do and will also already be on multiple planets so if earth or another planet of ours is destroyed by them, it won't end humanity. I will address the possibility of us being alone in argument 4.

3) Gaining new resources and places to live
Once we are able to travel fast enough that transporting good back and forth is plausible, we will be able to trade resources across our civilization. If a planet has tons of uranium, for example, than the humans staying on said planet will export uranium to other planets. Having multiple planets will also rid overpopulation. Humans will begin to move to new worlds as they become more and more habitable.

4) If we are alone.
If we are alone in the cosmos, it is about time we start making some head way into a universe that is unimaginable big.
Some people say, "if we are alone, it is an awful waste of space." Well , its time we starting using some space.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I look forward to Con's arguments and for this debate to get started!
whatledge

Con

I would like to first note that my opponent's reference to expansion is referring to human colonization. This has been clarified through private messages.

"1) In sure human survival."

I'll assume my opponent meant ENSURE human survival.

"Expanding to as many planets as possible will subsequently give humans a much greater chance of survival. At the current moment, we are on one planet, and if said planet is destroyed, humans will be extinct. One day, if roughly 5 billion years, our sun will no longer be stable enough for humans to remain on earth. That is the most definite way the earth will end, however huge asteroids, hostile aliens, and abnormal solar flares also have to potential to end our species. Another end to the earth, as we know it anyway, is the destruction of the moon. If we expand, we will also have multiple chances at how to take care of environments, and not destroying ourselves."

I would first like to address that the destruction of the sun, asteroid collision, hostility of aliens, and the like are all potential threats even if we were to colonize beyond earth. Instead of seeking to escape the problem by abandoning earth, I believe it is far more plausible to use those funds to better the security and wellbeing of earth. Furthermore, my opponent's contention is only valid, if we can indeed survive on another planet, and if there are an infinite number of planets that are terraformable. If there aren't an infinite number of colonize-able, the initial purpose to colonize "1) In sure [ensure] human survival" is negated, for if we run out of colonize-able planets, we face extinction.

"2) Discovery habitable worlds
Once we terraform Mars, we will proceed to terraform an planets and moons in our solar system that can be terraformed, however once this is done, we will need to continue outward and expand to our galaxy. We will do this by first scouting for habitable planets and terraformable planets. As we expand into space, the chances of finding alien life will become greater and greater. If these aliens are friendly, then it will be one of the most important discoveries of human kind. If they are hostile, we will learn ahead of time, before they reach earth, so we will have a heads up of what to do and will also already be on multiple planets so if earth or another planet of ours is destroyed by them, it won't end humanity. I will address the possibility of us being alone in argument 4."

The alien bit, I will leave alone, as it is based on whether or not the aliens would be intelligent or not (granted that one even exists). As for discovery of habitable worlds, my opponent has yet to explain why this is necessarily a must. Discovery is beneficial, but it we do not need to expand to discover. We can send droids as we are doing at this moment. Furthermore, my opponent's argument is only valid if there are other planets that are able to be terraformed other than mars. Simply said, "2) Discovery [of] habitable worlds" can be fulfilled without expanding.

"3) Gaining new resources and places to live
Once we are able to travel fast enough that transporting good back and forth is plausible, we will be able to trade resources across our civilization. If a planet has tons of uranium, for example, than the humans staying on said planet will export uranium to other planets. Having multiple planets will also rid overpopulation. Humans will begin to move to new worlds as they become more and more habitable."

While finding new resources is beneficial, it is certainly not a must, as there is nonrenewable energy that can be used. Rather than investing in space expansion, we can use the money to fund research on nonrenewable energy.
The overpopulation argument can be settled in other ways than expanding to space. We can simply regulate population.

"4) If we are alone.
If we are alone in the cosmos, it is about time we start making some head way into a universe that is unimaginable big.
Some people say, "if we are alone, it is an awful waste of space." Well , its time we starting using some space."

This contention has nothing to do with the resolution "Human Expansion into Space is a Must." There are lands in the U.S. that are barren and unclaimed. I ask my opponent to clarify this contention, if it indeed is relevant.

My opponent's 4 contentions: survival, discovery, resources/population, and "if we are alone", do not necessitate the need to expand as a must.

Now for some counter-arguments.

C1: We should focus on earth.

While my opponent claims that the sun will destroy the earth in 5 billion years. It does no good if something else destroys humanity before then. We should focus our resources on surviving for another 5 billion years, rather than what will happen after the year 5 billion.

C2: Infinite Colonization-able Planets.

My opponent's claim that we need to colonize to ensure survival does humanity no good, if humanity is doomed to extinction sooner or later. We can focus on escaping the next death of the sun in another solar system, but ultimately humanity is still doomed to extinction. The only difference is where the extinction occurs, on earth or another planet in a galaxy far, far away…

C3: Evolution

I would like to challenge my opponent's argument that expansion is needed to ensure human survival. We know through the theory of evolution that given enough time in a certain environment, being A can evolve into being B. So my theory is simple, given enough time that humans live on mars, they will gradually evolve into Martians, and likewise for other planets. Similar to how Homo sapiens are not Homo erectus, we can no longer identify the new evolved breed as human. Therefore, the resolution that expansion is needed to ensure humanity is negated. As what will survive will no longer be human.

I look forward to my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2
Brendan21

Pro

I thank Con for his rebuttal.

"I would first like to address that the destruction of the sun, asteroid collision, hostility of aliens, and the like are all potential threats even if we were to colonize beyond earth. Instead of seeking to escape the problem by abandoning earth, I believe it is far more plausible to use those funds to better the security and wellbeing of earth. Furthermore, my opponent's contention is only valid, if we can indeed survive on another planet, and if there are an infinite number of planets that are terraformable. If there aren't an infinite number of colonize-able, the initial purpose to colonize "1) In sure [ensure] human survival" is negated, for if we run out of colonize-able planets, we face extinction."

It is not plausible for us to try and defend against hostile aliens, who knows of the technology they have. We must simple have our eggs in more than one basket, the more the better. I also do not understand the conclusion that there needs to be an infinite number of colonisable planets. We will escape extinction as long as we are able to stay alive, not run out of new planets to go to. I will also point out that if we do colonize every habitable planet, planets will still continue being destroyed and new ones will continue to form, meaning new planets to colonize. I also point out that we still will have to leave the earth one day or we will be killed by the sun.

"The alien bit, I will leave alone, as it is based on whether or not the aliens would be intelligent or not (granted that one even exists). As for discovery of habitable worlds, my opponent has yet to explain why this is necessarily a must. Discovery is beneficial, but it we do not need to expand to discover. We can send droids as we are doing at this moment. Furthermore, my opponent's argument is only valid if there are other planets that are able to be terraformed other than mars. Simply said, "2) Discovery [of] habitable worlds" can be fulfilled without expanding."

It is necessary to discover new habitable worlds because we need to discover them before we can go to them. I think this point is extremely simple. The alien bit is indeed up to whether you believe in aliens, however I mentioned the possibility that they don't in argument 4.

"While finding new resources is beneficial, it is certainly not a must, as there is non renewable energy that can be used. Rather than investing in space expansion, we can use the money to fund research on non renewable energy.
The overpopulation argument can be settled in other ways than expanding to space. We can simply regulate population."

Non renewable resources are great, and I agree we could use the money for finding ways to power the world with them. However, Con's position on regulating population is not plausible. With free countries, such as America, where we both live, it is illegal for the government to enact such a restriction. In America, for example, it would be unconstitutional for the government to limit the amount of kids people can have. Eventually, when overpopulation is a huge issue, we will probably begin to expand into space, maybe with space stations at first, but sooner or later we will take more planets.

"This contention has nothing to do with the resolution "Human Expansion into Space is a Must." There are lands in the U.S. that are barren and unclaimed. I ask my opponent to clarify this contention, if it indeed is relevant."

These lands are barren and that is the reason no one lives there. Once America suffers from overpopulation, these areas will no longer be unclaimed and the poorer peoples will inhabit this area.

Now on to Con's counter argument.
"C1: We should focus on earth.

While my opponent claims that the sun will destroy the earth in 5 billion years. It does no good if something else destroys humanity before then. We should focus our resources on surviving for another 5 billion years, rather than what will happen after the year 5 billion."

I 100% agree with Con on this, which is why we should have our eggs in more than one basket.

"C2: Infinite Colonization-able Planets.

My opponent's claim that we need to colonize to ensure survival does humanity no good, if humanity is doomed to extinction sooner or later. We can focus on escaping the next death of the sun in another solar system, but ultimately humanity is still doomed to extinction. The only difference is where the extinction occurs, on earth or another planet in a galaxy far, far away…"

My opponent's claim that humanity is doomed to extinction is only true 100% if the universe will one day come to an end. Planets will continue to end and form in the universe, as I've already pointed out, thus we won't run out of places to colonize. I would also like to point out that the fact that there isn't an infinite number of planets is not a reason to sit around on earth waiting for doomsday.

"C3: Evolution

I would like to challenge my opponent's argument that expansion is needed to ensure human survival. We know through the theory of evolution that given enough time in a certain environment, being A can evolve into being B. So my theory is simple, given enough time that humans live on mars, they will gradually evolve into Martians, and likewise for other planets. Similar to how Homo sapiens are not Homo erectus, we can no longer identify the new evolved breed as human. Therefore, the resolution that expansion is needed to ensure humanity is negated. As what will survive will no longer be human."

This point is extremely awesome and I would like to give credit where credit is due. However, I don't think our DNA will change simply because the land under our feet is different. It will take thousands if not millions of years for there to be a noticeable difference from humans on a planet with low gravity than on a planet with high gravity and even with this difference, we will all still be apart of the human species. Its not like humans in the future are going to look exactly like us either, so I don't see this point as valid.

I thank Con for an interesting debate, and wish him luck. I urge a vote for Pro.
whatledge

Con

:Ensure Survival of Humanity:

I do grant my opponent that if humanity does indeed last another 5 billion years, we will need to expand into another planet to escape death from the sun. However, I would like to address these points.

1. First of all, hostile aliens is strictly hypothetical, no evidence has been shown to why as to they must exist, be intelligent, or be hostile.
2. If there aren't an infinite number of planets to colonize, the original intention to ensure humanity's survival is negated. Once we run out of planets that are able to be colonized, humanity will meet its end.
3. And my challenge against the sun argument is that we need to focus on surviving for another 3~4 billion years, before we can worry about the sun killing us all. It does us no good to focus on space traveling, while the situations on earth are unstable.

All 3 points remain.

:Discovery of Habitable Worlds:

"It is necessary to discover new habitable worlds because we need to discover them before we can go to them."

My point is that expansion (colonization) is not necessary to discover new things in space. We have yet to land on mars, and yet we have discovered many things about it. Discovery can be done with robots and droids. Therefore, the resolution that "Human expansion into space is a must [for discovery of habitable worlds]" is negated.

:Gaining Resources and Places to live:

"Non renewable resources are great, and I agree we could use the money for finding ways to power the world with them."

Seeing as my opponent has not refuted my non-renewable resources argument, I will take it that he concedes his resources argument.

"However, Con's position on regulating population is not plausible. With free countries, such as America, where we both live, it is illegal for the government to enact such a restriction. In America, for example, it would be unconstitutional for the government to limit the amount of kids people can have. Eventually, when overpopulation is a huge issue, we will probably begin to expand into space, maybe with space stations at first, but sooner or later we will take more planets."

Regulating population is a possible solution to overpopulation. I am not here to argue on whether or not such action is ethical or moral, I am merely offering a possible solution in answer to your problem of overpopulation. A solution exists without the need for expansion (colonization), and therefore, the resolution that space expansion is a must to solve overpopulation is negated.

:If we are alone:

"These lands are barren and that is the reason no one lives there. Once America suffers from overpopulation, these areas will no longer be unclaimed and the poorer peoples will inhabit this area"

My opponent has offered no sources or supporting facts as to why the above statement is true. And most importantly, he has also yet to clarify why space expansion is a must, "If we are alone." Unfortunately this is the last round, so I'll leave it to the audience to decide whether or not this point is valid to the debate at hand.

My opponent's refutation against

C1: We should focus on earth

Con: "While my opponent claims that the sun will destroy the earth in 5 billion years. It does no good if something else destroys humanity before then. We should focus our resources on surviving for another 5 billion years, rather than what will happen after the year 5 billion."

Pro: "I 100% agree with Con on this, which is why we should have our eggs in more than one basket."

My opponent agrees with me, but has not explained his "we should have our eggs in more than one basket" metaphor, and how it applies to my argument. My contention was that we should seek to better secure the earth rather than focus our time and funds on space colonization.

C2: Infinite Colonization-able Planets

Con: "My opponent's claim that we need to colonize to ensure survival does humanity no good, if humanity is doomed to extinction sooner or later. We can focus on escaping the next death of the sun in another solar system, but ultimately humanity is still doomed to extinction. The only difference is where the extinction occurs, on earth or another planet in a galaxy far, far away…"

Pro: "My opponent's claim that humanity is doomed to extinction is only true 100% if the universe will one day come to an end. Planets will continue to end and form in the universe, as I've already pointed out, thus we won't run out of places to colonize."

First, I would like to address that granted that planets die and are reborn, this does not mean any of those planets will be inhabitable.

"I would also like to point out that the fact that there isn't an infinite number of planets is not a reason to sit around on earth waiting for doomsday."

My contentions are aimed to only support the fact that expansion to ensure human survival is flawed, if there aren't planets that can consistently be colonized. The resolution "Human expansion into space is a must [to Ensure Survival of Humanity]" is negated, unless my opponent provides evidence as to why those reborn planets are inhabitable. As he has not chosen to do so, my argument remains.

C3: Evolution

"This point is extremely awesome and I would like to give credit where credit is due. However, I don't think our DNA will change simply because the land under our feet is different. It will take thousands if not millions of years for there to be a noticeable difference from humans on a planet with low gravity than on a planet with high gravity and even with this difference, we will all still be apart of the human species. Its not like humans in the future are going to look exactly like us either, so I don't see this point as valid."

I would like to note that Homo sapiens are not Homo erectus. Though Homo erectus evolves into Homo sapiens, the two are distinct. The origin of all species is alike, but that does not mean we are all the same. Therefore, the evolved form of humans that live on mars will no longer be "human" when they grow into another distinct evolved species.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I thank Con for this debate, and leave the rest to the voters.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by vivalayeo 6 years ago
vivalayeo
We could send four men in a ship loaded with warhead's to destroy unstable star's so we can further colonize the universe....no.....wait that was DarkStar
Posted by whatledge 6 years ago
whatledge
@ninja_tru

Thanks for the RFD. I just want to say that the resolution was that space expansion is a must, not we should expand to space. That is why I focused on negating the reasons that we "must" go, not why we should not go. If I were to take another route it would be to argue for why we "must" not go, which is very difficult.
Posted by Ninja_Tru 6 years ago
Ninja_Tru
This was quite a good debate. I agree with Pro, the Con's argument on colonizing planets with humans someday not becoming humans is pretty clever. I ended up voting Pro on arguments, but tied on everything else.

The way I saw the arguments playing out is that the Pro is consistently making sympathetic and logical claims why it's important we expand, and the Con is making "all these problems inevitable" arguments (which are very well detailed and explained) on all of those Pro points. So, the scoreboard ends up looking like: "Pro says there are good reasons for expanding, but Con says those reasons aren't very good. So... there aren't any strong reasons to go, but also no reasons to not go. Even if there's only a 1% chance that expanding does some good, it's still a reason to expand."

Con, to win, you need some reasons why expanding would be a BAD idea. Otherwise, you're only making defensive arguments to the Pro's offensive. Something very simply worded like "Leaving would make us forget to protect ourselves" would have been sufficient. However, I don't see anything like that, so I have to vote Pro. Stellar defense though, lots of sub-points on each Pro point. I wish there were more debates and debaters like this on DDO.
Posted by dmarais 6 years ago
dmarais
sounds like we MAY be extinct sooner than that. any of yall seen the "Methane Bubble" article, about the gulf oil spill setting off a doomsday scenario? pretty creepy, though personally i think it's just a bunch of people trying to get hits on their science websites. panic equals publicity
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by TheDizziestLemon 6 years ago
TheDizziestLemon
Brendan21whatledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by iKaleb 6 years ago
iKaleb
Brendan21whatledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by RazaMobizo 6 years ago
RazaMobizo
Brendan21whatledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wmpeebles 6 years ago
wmpeebles
Brendan21whatledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Ninja_Tru 6 years ago
Ninja_Tru
Brendan21whatledgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30