Ocean exploration/colonization makes more sense than Space exploration/colonization
Debate Rounds (3)
I get annoyed every time I hear something having to do with NASA's new findings for what space has to offer us. Or when I hear people talk about over population and how the earth can house only so many people. AM I the only one who has noticed that we only live on the land? (and even then we have a lot of open space)
Why is it so..." because we can't breathe under water silly head!"
No... almost every problem we encounter with ocean exploration/colonization we experience with space. Why do you think space is the better or worse way to spend our recearch funds?
While oceanic exploration is a worthy endeavor and has been largely ignored, the long-term, and I do mean long term, future survival of the human race depends on space exploration. I agree living in or on the ocean is going to be important as sea levels rise with global warming, but space exploration will yield even more exciting rewards.
Side note: NASA's budget is relatively tiny these days and they might have much more impressive results if they had better funding. To continue, our sun will burn out in approximately 5 billion years at which point Earth, oceans and all, will become uninhabitable due to extreme cold (oceans will freeze) among other things.
One space exploration endeavor that could pay off handsomely in the near future is asteroid mining; which could yield tons of precious resources without threat of say polluting the ocean as we have seen with the Horizon deep water drill rig.
Also, at any moment an asteroid may come hurtling at Earth and cause mass extinction. We actually already have the technology to prevent such devastation--telescopes keeping watch and a rocket ready to launch to tow the rock off of the collision course, but aren't funding any operations to do so. This could potentially eliminate the human race at any time, including before global warming and rising sea levels get a chance.
I'll include sources for this information if anyone wants to see it, but I just took an astronomy course at university and I know a bit about space.
Now we could build a self sustaining domes that could have earth like conditions, but then we wouldn't really need mars. It provides no true protection. On the other hand we could build huge ships and just drift off into space but then what? We don't have any other place to be.
Earth is the best it gets for us. We cannot travel to other stars, and by the time we can the distances will be much greater than they are now (Space expands faster than the speed of light). It seems all odds are against the possibiltiy of a future in space travel (to other stars or galaxies) . All we have to work with are those in our solar system, non of which have any potential for being able to save us from our sun.
To address your point about extinction from possible ? (By the way I understand the meteors impact kicks up enough dirt to block sunlight for months, but we can create artificial light and still be able to grow food)
I REREAD my 1st argument and realized I made it seem like I'm against space exploration entirely, but no that's not the case.
I think we both agree now that space isn't just the practical place for the long term future of the human race, it's the only place. I repeat that at any moment, Earth could be destroyed by a cosmic collision. In terms of Earth's "carrying capacity" if you will, I think we are nowhere near to that population currently, and there are a number of ways of preventing overpopulation from ever being a problem without venturing into the ocean or space for that matter. If you are worried about overpopulation, then one would have to realize that eventually the water wouldn't be enough either and that humans would need to inhabit another celestial body or spaceship.
When you say, "every problem we encounter with ocean exploration/colonization we experience with space, I disagree. Frankly, I think ocean exploration and colonization would be much easier and cheaper as well, but as I mentioned before, it is only a temporary solution to a problem we may never have. Exploring space, dollar for dollar, will yield better rewards and advances in technology that will make ocean exploration other than for the sake of exploration, irrelevant.
The ocean we understand much better than space, within which we have many uncertainties about frequently occurring objects such as black holes and dark matter, and is less of a challenge to explore [cheaper to get in the oceans and easier to assist in any problems that may occur].
Five billion years is a long time, the first life on Earth may have come on the scene 3.5 billion years ago (http://paleobiology.si.edu...). The universe is about 14-15 billion years old, se we know that life can make it at least 3.5 billion, and with life forms as advanced as humans and as capable of manipulating our surroundings, it is within reason to think that we could make it another 3.5 billion years or more.
However, you're right, we may not last that long, but we increase our chances if we are able to split up the population and create another home elsewhere in the universe, which of course we'll never be able to do if we don't first explore space.
Mars, by the way, is not necessarily even the best prospect for colonization within our own solar system; Jupiter's moon Europa for example has liquid on its surface and Saturn's Titan has volcanic activity (http://rt.com...). As far as 'spaceships drifting off, but then what,' that's exactly my question about the ocean, but then what? What do we do if something happens to the ocean? Say it becomes highly polluted, acidic, too hot? Whereas a spaceship 'drifting off' is always moving and could be self-sustaining.
I agree a magnetic field is essential as is having enough water. However if we could drag some comets into the planet we wish to colonize, we could bring some water and be thrifty enough to live off of it. I think a colony within the solar system is only really good for a few things; first learning how to colonize and getting the bugs out, second as a sort of gas station for farther expeditions, and third God forbid something happens to Earth, the colony may remain intact.
The ocean isn't much good when it's covered in a thick layer of ash as well, as a matter of fact the ocean can do more harm than good as in a meteor strike, tidal waves can cover the better part of continents, killing all land life. The ocean is still very much a part of Earth which is one of the problems.
"It seems all odds are against the possibility of a future in space travel."--Really? Isn't that what people said to Vasco da Gama about sailing from Europe to India? About running an engine on steam? About driving a combustion engine car from coast to coast? About flying? About putting men on the moon? The odds being against a possibility has never stopped man before, I doubt it will in the future.
That artificial light thought is interesting, but we would need a lot of it to produce anywhere near the amount of food that we currently grow.
Even things as simple as satellites can do amazing things such as provide solar energy that will last the 5 billion years until our sun fizzles out.
By the way NASA and NOAA aren't the only agencies exploring space and the ocean and I have already mentioned why NASA's must be bigger--space exploration takes more resources and is therefore more expensive, but it's worth it.
You've provided very few benefits or potential benefits of oceanic exploration, but you've attacked merits of space exploration plenty. I assume that you have some reasons why exploring the ocean is such a great opportunity if it is as you claim.
I thought on what it is we'really discussing...and came down to the conclusion that you and I are probably not going to agree on much of anything. Partly because you still see space as a possible venture. After taking physics, I realized our knowledge of space will continue to be limited and possibly wrong, so long as we continue to make our observation from one fixed location (earth), and make assumptions on how things work based on information we've collected over a couple of decades of study (to get a better picture we'd need to study for thousands of years.) It would be like a person new to earth (ill refer to him as bob) making assumptions of how it is based on what they can see from one standing position, and for only 5 sec of observations. And even if that person had as much time as they needed, there knowledge would be forever limited because they could only base there information on what they see. If we move withing our solar system it would be like Bob taking one step in any direction to study the earth (its not very helpful, but one could argue its better than nothing). We need to cover some serious distances in space, and I don't think traveling the speed of light is possible.
I also don't think we will agree because you are more focus on saving mankind from its inevitable end.
ITS LATE AND IM going to quickly wrap it up.
1.Space is expanding faster than light.
2. There are more stars to explore than there are grains of Sand on all of the beaches of earth combined.
3.humans wouldn't be able to survive going the speed of light,
Critical_Knowledge forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.