Should space be colonized?
Debate Rounds (3)
Is this goal technically feasible? Are there compelling benefits to go? How much is it going to cost? The reality is none of these questions can be satisfactorily answered.
Can it be done? We are tethered to our solar system by the speed of light. Any ship we sent today would take more time to reach another solar system than has passed between now and the dawn of civilization.
How much would it cost? Consider that the Apollo program cost more than it would take to end world hunger for over 15 years! Our money could be better spent.
Are the benefits real? Existential threats to humanity tend to be either overstated, or so far off as to be moot. One day, all the stars in the galaxy will flicker out, and no amount of running will save us. We are likely to transcend more immediate threats by technology in a few generations.
In terms of the cost, comparing a colonization mission to the Apollo mission is a faulty analogy. Landing on the moon was just a "look what we can do" event. Colonizing space is more like the colonization of North America. Sure, it was risky and questionable in the beginning, but a force that shapes the entire world arose from the mission to America. This is one of the many benefits that would outweigh the costs of colonizing space. Others include mining and research.
Costs are paramount. In 1965, Apollo reached 5% GDP, nearly passing health care spending. For that investment, we gave 12 men each a 3 day trip to the moon. Some might say that is a immoral misuse of money, given our needs. It would be pennies next to colonization.
The benefits of space are great, but don't require man. Robust exploration and resource exploitation programs can be automated. The man will always be the expensive part.
If space colonies are feasible, they'll be unnecessary. And if technological innovation won't save the planet, it also won't let us escape.
debaterTater123 forfeited this round.
Then you ask, why are we going there? Are we facing an existential threat that can not be solved by technology more easily than colonization? No. Can we not explore the universe with robots, and have them bring us back the bounty of space more efficiently? Yes.
Our true future will be within, when we reach transcendence through the technological singularity in a few generations.
Consequently, space colonization is not necessary.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
|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:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were alright, albeit lacking in reason as to why space be colonised, rather than whether it could be done. The debate quickly dissolved into whether it can be done, rather than whether it should be done. However, this seemed to do a full circle and come around back to the resolution. Particularly with Con's uncontested 2nd round arguments, the cost factor is obviously a massive burden. Con's final point although very brief, was pretty damn brutal. Due to these two arguments, I give Con arguments. Con wins sources, too, because they were integral to the winning arguments. Conduct wins conduct for Pro's round forfeit.
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.