The Instigator
PixelSlayer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nzrsaa
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Should we go to Mars?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Nzrsaa
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,513 times Debate No: 46321
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

PixelSlayer

Pro

We should go to mars because we could possibly find new elements to cure diseases or cancer. There could be possible life on mars. There is a fundraiser called Mars One where they have plan for the future of us and mars. Give us your opinion!
Nzrsaa

Con

There are 3 main reasons why we shouldn't go to mars. The first would be the pointless endeavour of searching for life; the second would be the cost of such an activity, and the third would be the undoubted risk of space exploration.

Life
Pro says that we could discover new life on mars. However, this is extremely unlikely, due to the very precise set of conditions required for any life to arise anywhere. There are 4 main requirements for abiogenesis - life arising from non-life - to occur: [1]
1. An atmosphere full of reduced gas molecules and an energy source to convert these molecules into the biological precursors required for life.
2. An ocean full of the small biological molecules that result.
3. A mechanism to generate from this ocean of molecules the kinds of information-rich polymers necessary for a living cell.
4. This must be implemented, it will result almost inevitably in the formation of a living cell.

We, on earth, are extremely lucky to posess conditions that fit right into these requirements. However, mars is 97% Carbon Dioxide, and there is barely any atmosphere. In fact, the Atmosphere of Mars is 200 times smaller than Earth"s. [2] Such a precise set of conditions required for life to occur could never - not even in the age of Mars - give rise to life.
We also have positive evidence that there is no life on Mars. This is due to the findings of the Mars rover; it found no trace of methane, the gas produced by life. [3] So we can say with some certainty that no, there is no life on mars and we shouldn't go to Mars in search of life, it would just be futile.

Cost
The cost of such an expedition is an obvious disadvantage. Mars One, the proposed journey for 4 people to travel to Mars on 2024, will cost $6 Billion. [4] That is $1.5 Billion per person. Imagine the opportunity cost of that! With that money, we could solve poverty and hunger in large parts of Africa, or invest in green energy resources. That, or 4 people on mars. I think te choice is an obvious one - in terms of overall benefit, it would be far greater to invest on earthly projects.

Risk
Perhaps the main issue of mars exploration is risk. As the mars-one website states:
"Human space exploration is dangerous at all levels. After more than fifty years of humans leaving the far Earth below, the risk of space flight is similar to that of climbing Mount Everest. Mars is an unforgiving environment where a small mistake or accident can result in large failure, injury, and death. Every component must work perfectly. Every system (and its backup) must function without fail or human life is at risk. [5]
It is risks such as these which make me feel that maybe going to mars isn't such a great idea.

Sources:
[1] http://origins.swau.edu...
[2] http://www.universetoday.com...
[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[4] http://www.mars-one.com...
[5] http://www.mars-one.com...
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 3 years ago
Josh_b
PixelSlayerNzrsaaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: one round debate. and con goes deep into logic of not going to Mars.
Vote Placed by black_squirrel 3 years ago
black_squirrel
PixelSlayerNzrsaaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: New elements on Mars? I don't think so. Pro did not have any good arguments. Con on the other hand, had some reasonable arguments, and sources.