The Instigator
llaurenthellama
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
MWonderWolf
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Should We Colonize Another Planet?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
MWonderWolf
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 12 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 580 times Debate No: 91484
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

llaurenthellama

Con

This first round is just for accepting. I'm voting against it.
MWonderWolf

Pro

Well, I accept! Let's have fun!
Debate Round No. 1
llaurenthellama

Con

First of all, thanks for making this happen! Now, to business..
I think this Calvin and Hobbes comic strip will make my point, first of all. s://sawbonessurio.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" />
MWonderWolf

Pro

Not enough of the URL. Can't do anything. If I hit 'enter,' it pulls it up on Google. Colonizing another planet would be beneficial to the human race. We could expand our borders. Plus, it doesn't have to be in our solar systems. As you know me quite well, you know that I love wolves. there is a planet out there that is named, 'Wolf1061c'. There are many more. Just type 'potentially habitable planets,' and you will find a quite long list.
Debate Round No. 2
llaurenthellama

Con

I have viewed the list, but don't you see? Leaving our planet for another one is trashing a perfectly great planet until it combusts and then going and finding a brand-new one to ruin for our safety.

Honestly, don't you think that's just wrong? After all that we've done to this planet, I think that we'd deserve to die along with it.

Next, I quote from Science20.com:

" It is almost inevitable that a colony on Mars will eventually contaminate the planet with Earth micro-organisms.
At current levels of technology, I don't see how that can be avoided. A human is host to about 100 trillion micro-organisms in 10,000 different species. A habitat would have many other micro-organisms too, in the food, in the soil, other supplies, and floating in the air.

Some of those may be able to reproduce on the surface, particularly lichens, and some hardy micro-organisms, polyextremophiles that may be able to survive in marginal habitats of cold salty brine that may form around deliquescing salts in the morning and evening. See my Might there be Microbes on the surface of Mars?. Some of these can do just fine in human habitats but have surprising hidden capabilities to survive in extreme conditions. The rovers are sterilized to prevent contamination - humans can't be.

Now, if you aren't a scientist that mightn't bother you much. But back on Earth you would be known as the people who irreversibly contaminated Mars. You would probably get a fair bit of negative press for doing that, and through all the future of human history would probably be known as much as the humans who contaminated Mars as the first to colonize the planet.

This would make it hard or impossible to tell whether or not any of the life forms you find on the planet are introduced Earth life or native (many micro-organisms on Earth are poorly characterized). It would also complicate experiments to look for trace biosignatures in the deposits on Mars, some of these sensitive enough to detect a single amino acid in a gram of soil.

The contamination could also affect your water supplies. There's also the possibility that it could evolve on the surface through adaptive radiation into new forms hazardous to humans, because the conditions are so different (strong UV, cosmic radiation etc). These then could return to the habitats some years later, still retaining their abilities to survive in a human habitat, but with extra capabilities from their evolution on the surface of Mars."

Not only would it be *incredibly* hard to switch planets, but to carry the load of extraterrestrial germs would be a Superman task. We would probably die from the strange viruses alone. Another problem with a doubt would be Space Radiation. Even on Earth, our frail bodies cannot stand radiation for long. The magnetic field on Earth prevent us from Space Radiation, but on planets like Mars, the exposure can increase your chances of developing cancer later in life. NASA says that this radiation can cause sickness that results in nausea, vomiting, anorexia, and fatigue.

And my link that I *tried* to share with you I have attached again.

Live, little guy! And you might have to scroll down quite a bit before you find the comic.
https://sawbonessurio.wordpress.com...

Thanks,
LlaurenTheLlama
MWonderWolf

Pro

All I'm hearing right now is 'MARS, MARS, MARS!' DID I EVER SAY IT HAD TO BE MARS?! No, I did not. The list of inhabitable planets goes on and on, and all are able to handle the human contaminants. Also, each planet would have a low population, and a restricted amount of greenhouse gases, which is what is destroying Earth. Personally, I'd go live on Wolf 1061c. But that's personal. Another plus: people get to choose what planet they live on! No families would need to be broken up. Hey, I just noticed something: why are we here? If humans died off, the world would go on with the next step in evolution. WE FILL NO ECOLOGICAL NICHE! So, yeah. Also, I hate Mars. He's the God of war. The planet's storms are war-like. There's not breathable air. #whydowewanttocolonizemars?whynotanotherplanet?
Debate Round No. 3
llaurenthellama

Con

Yes, even Stephen Hawking said it himself: Humanity would likely not survive another 1,000 years "Without escaping beyond our fragile planet". But with escaping, we will require thousands of raw energy just to leave our very own solar system. All of these planets I am seeing right now- including Wolf 1061c- are light-years away, and with that 1,000 years time left to stay, I *highly* doubt that we would create light-speed energy in time to survive.

And even then, you and me already know that animals are going extinct in general. Vegetarian is always an option, yet we would need to consume pounds of it a day to compensate for the low protein intake. Sure, we'll have chickens and fish and cows and pigs, yet by the time we inject all those 'vitamins' and switch out their DNA code to make them plumper, are they really animals? And do we want all those chemicals in the animal in us, too?

And can you prove that these planets are in fact able to handle our contaminants? There's a true story about the Hawaiians, who welcomed the Englishmen joyfully, but fell ill to their seemingly 'unnatural' sicknesses the Englishmen had developed an immunity to. Thousands died there. And yet the two groups had lived on the same planet! This should be a lesson to say that even living on the same surface together for thousands of years doesn't mean you have the same weaknesses. And to think! Imagine you are on a spaceship, zooming away to Wolf 1061c, when your cabin mate develops the flu. He eventually dies, because the new environment and the virus were simply too much for his immune system. More quickly contract this harmful disease, and the spaceship local doctor is overwhelmed with illness. This is just one of the many problems that could happen on board.

LlaurenTheLlama
MWonderWolf

Pro

We have the energy, just not the technology. We have more than 1000 years, but, by then, you're right. Earth would be quite decimated. But I never said we had to colonize planets NOW, did I? Anyways, we're close to that technology. Ok. What does being vegetarian have to do with colonizing other planets? Look up 'natural selection'. It's why we, and most animals, are still here. Another solution: we can bring animals with to colonize. Some planets are for different animals. Those would be experiments. We would find out which animals go best with which planets. Also, read 'Speaker for the Dead'. I have it if you want to borrow it.
Debate Round No. 4
llaurenthellama

Con

Thanks, I'll be sure to lend "Speaker for the Dead" from you ('Speaker for the Dead'?! What kind of warped, twisted book is this?! do I really want to read this book?).

I think you're forgetting one crucial fact, however, when it comes to the 'bringing animals along with us' thing. So, like Noah's Ark, right? Well, here's the problem so far: Water Bears (tardigrades) are currently the only animal which can survive space in a shuttle, and the only reason they can is because of their unique ability to 'shut down', not to be confused with 'hibernate'. They will shrivel themselves to survive, and then fall into a very deep sleep for hundreds of years at a time. Most animals can't do that, last I checked.

And what would we bring, in terms of luggage and pets? Again, imagine a space shuttle, ready for takeoff. Many humans gather around the small entryway, bringing their personal belongings. What would you bring to the trip of the century? Your book collection, a couple electronics (haHA! WiFi wouldn't work in space!), some pictures of the world you are about to leave behind, and plenty of clothes for the long journey ahead.

At a minimum, this is what I imagine you'd bring. Now, let's see.. How many pounds would all that be? Well, books, depending on the size, could be about ten, twelve pounds altogether. And your clothes, assuming you brought all you had would be maybe twenty pounds. And let's not forget all the doodads and such we would all like to keep. Likely ranging from thirty pounds to twenty-five pounds. Now multiply all that by five, how many people you have in your family. Ouch. Wait, there's more! Multiply THAT times the number of people abroad with you, too. And there you have it. Will this ship make it out of the atmosphere without falling? In fact, below is a link for you to check out:

But first,
Thanks,
LlaurenTheLlama

http://www.businessinsider.com...

MWonderWolf

Pro

MWonderWolf forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MWonderWolf 12 months ago
MWonderWolf
http://www.debate.org...
See for yourself if u want. I reported it.
Posted by MWonderWolf 12 months ago
MWonderWolf
Ok. I didn't look it up cuz I thought it would be bad.
Posted by Ragnar 12 months ago
Ragnar
For a vote that poor (f word), don't hesitate to click report.
Posted by MWonderWolf 12 months ago
MWonderWolf
Hey, I'm new too. As soon as I made an account, I 'recruited' you. And someone on here by the name of Luise or something like that, you would know her from school... Txt me who you think it is; I wouldn't want to uncover her real name.

Yes. Thank you Ragnar. This is the first debate where I got some real feedback. The only debate I've one is the one where the guy started out with the word 'faggot'. That's all the voter said for his RFD.
Posted by llaurenthellama 12 months ago
llaurenthellama
Thank you, Ragnar! We're (mostly me) both pretty new to this debate stuff, so I appreciate the feedback!
Posted by MWonderWolf 12 months ago
MWonderWolf
Oh, another thing: we're both girls :)
Posted by MWonderWolf 12 months ago
MWonderWolf
Ok. Thanks!
Posted by Ragnar 12 months ago
Ragnar
RFD = Reason For Decision.

It and just about every other term is listed here: https://docs.google.com...
Posted by MWonderWolf 12 months ago
MWonderWolf
And I definitely agree with your second paragraph :)
Posted by MWonderWolf 12 months ago
MWonderWolf
What's an RFD?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 12 months ago
Ragnar
llaurenthellamaMWonderWolfTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit. After a delay, pro vaguely points out benefits to the human race, con tried to counter with the human race should die... As a human judge, I need to be convinced (within the scope of the debate) that there is some benefit to us all dying, instead of say natural selection that pro pointed out (if we can survive, we should, because we're stronger etc). Con did himself in a little bit by pulling Stephen Hawking against himself (we'll die within 1000 years if we stay here, yeah if humans dying is a positive he'd win on that, but he needed that piece of the puzzle to work for instead of against him). Sources... Sources were tossed out there without analysis to tie it into the arguments, from what I did read if they're to be taken seriously traveling to and from Mars can be done inside a day without preparation (scope of the debate, I know it's a cartoon, but am I supposed to treat your whole case as childish drawings? Or shall I treat it with respect?)