The Instigator
kenny_jr
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Critical_Knowledge
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Ocean exploration/colonization makes more sense than Space exploration/colonization

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 9/4/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,449 times Debate No: 37378
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

kenny_jr

Pro

For a number of reasons, it seems clear to me that space isn't a practical place to ensure the best for the future of the human race.
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?
Critical_Knowledge

Con

Thanks for the interesting topic and good luck.

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.

Your turn.
Debate Round No. 1
kenny_jr

Pro

I see where you are coming from, but 5 billion years is a long ways in our future. To add to that, we can't even be sure the human race will last that long. The bringing plants to Mars sounds interesting, but it wouldn't work in changing Mars to an earth like environment... 1.) Its core has stopped moving (no magnetic field = no protection from the suns punishing rays of heat and radiation) and we can't just jump start it. 2.) We'd need tons of water or ice to change the planet to accomidate the plants and our needs (would you take water from earth? If so how much do you think is enough to take? How would removing water, effect our water cycle?)
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.
Critical_Knowledge

Con

Alright, sir let's wrap up round two shall we?

I
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].

II
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.
Debate Round No. 2
kenny_jr

Pro

I had alittle bit of problems submitting the version of my argument that made sense. Glad to see you read it in the comments area tho (Its my glitchy phones fault).
-----------------
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

Con

Critical_Knowledge forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
If you look at the 4 billion years of likely remaining existence of our planet, we will need to find another solar system before then to exist. Otherwise we will all perish when we are swallowed up by the sun.
cooked alive on the surface or boiled alive in the oceans, it makes little difference.
Either way, humans will no longer exist in this universe.
Finding another solar system with a fairly young star is the only way humans will continue to exist.
Polluting the Oceans even more by colonizing them, won't save us from the damage we've already done to the planet.
Posted by jameswalters 3 years ago
jameswalters
1.) Its core has stopped moving (no magnetic field = no protection from the suns punishing rays of heat and radiation) and we can't just jump start it.

2.) We'd need tons of water or ice to change the planet to accomidate the plants and our needs (would you take water from earth? If so how much do you think is enough to take? How would removing water, effect our water cycle?)

To # 1

My earlier statement cancels out that statement you can put plants on mars there for building a new atmosphere (off the top of my head it would take <5 million years to fix the atmosphere).

At #2

polar ice caps... nuff said.

(im cutting this short so there are flaws so next time ill patch them up when the inspectors (you) have seen the flaws)
I'm James Thomas Walters and I say HA (translation got you there)
Posted by MysticEgg 3 years ago
MysticEgg
Hey, I asked this question! :D
Posted by kenny_jr 3 years ago
kenny_jr
It was supposed to say...
I see where you are coming from, but 5 billion years is a long ways in our future. To add to that, we can't even be sure the human race will last that long. The bringing plants to Mars sounds interesting, but it wouldn't work in changing Mars to an earth like environment... 1.) Its core has stopped moving (no magnetic field = no protection from the sun's punishing rays of heat and radiation) and we can't just jump start it. 2.) We'd need tons of water or ice to change the planet to accomidate the plants and our needs (would you take water from earth? If so how much do you think is enough to take? How would removing water, effect our water cycle?)
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 (by that I mean 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 end of the world scenarios, how many situations can you think of, where the ocean couldn't act as protection for you? (By the way I understand meteor impacts kick up enough dirt to block sunlight for months, but we can create artificial light and still be able to grow food)
By the way NASA's budget is way larger than NOAA's.
The ocean is the way to go!
Posted by jameswalters 3 years ago
jameswalters
I have a few simple words to say...
If we colonize the ocean our waste would pollute the earth more.
If we colonize other planets and space we would gain more resources to work with.
In the ocean we wouldn't be able to change the atmosphere and levels of oxygen in the air.
What I mean by this is if we go to Mars, to use as an example, the heightened levels of carbon dioxide would give the plants plenty of Carbon dioxide (95.32%) that could feed the plants. All that is necessary to this plan to work is to find the correct plant that could survive the climate (meaning the 95.32% and the temperature). The approximate price to do this is approximately 400 million USD (the same price as the Spirit rover) which I think is a bad estimation on my part, but still the price of saving our planet would be worth it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.