Space Exploration is more important than Global Affairs.
Debate Rounds (3)
I define Space Exploration to be: "The exploration of the cosmos for organic and sentient life, and for the prospecting of future planets and miscellaneous masses containing valuable minerals and future areas of habitat."
My points for the importance of Space Exploration over Job Creation are as follows:
- The process of job creation is run on the foundations of innovation and ideas, two things that NASA has excelled at.
Here are 10 things developed due to Space Exploration Foundations.
Scratch Resistant Lenses
The Ear Thermometer
Satellite Technology and Ultra-Accurate Cartography
Innovations like Synthetic Materials, Satellite Technology, Water Filters, and in addition Velcro have lengthened the lifespan of the human being and contributed the further technological advancement of humankind.
In addition, Space Exploration (due to NASA) has contributed to the realization of Climate Change. This movement has spurred the search for clean renewable resources that venture beyond the gasoline pump.
The irony of this is that steam technology ran from approximately the 1820's to the late 1890's, followed by the combustion engine founded in the turn of the 20th century. Gasoline tank engines have consumed trillions of gallons of gasoline and have been around for over 150 years. It originated in 1860 by the inventor by the name of Lenoir. Once again another sign that we need to progress in technology and Space Exploration has proven to be a well invested effort in the advancement in techology.
To tackle the prospect of the more importance of job creation, I have one thng to say. How would YOU have liked it if we lived in a time where we used glass for nearly every container, run the risk of water pollution due to mistreated contaminated water, and where it would take days to receive word or communication from relatives or business clients, and risk hundreds of infections in hospitals all because your ancestors wanted to work on the farm or office rather than to focus on prospects that were deemed unimportant and a waste of time and money?
With this, I present my thesis that with the encouragement of Space Exploration we can vastly further our technology and relations as a species, in addition to creating ideas or inventions that can in turn spur new lines of work, lengthen the life of a human being, and could in turn introduce humanity to new cultures, lifeforms, and foreign minerals.
The floor is open, and I welcome the opposing argument.
Many thanks to funnyhomeboy for beginning this debate, and welcome to DDO!
I accept his terms and definitions, and submit:
Global Affairs - International political current events and affairs, including but not limited to issues pertaining to science, technology, religion and society .
One thing remains ambiguous, however, and that's the role of government as it pertains to the resolution. Is this debate about increasing government funds to invest in space exploration? It seems that way given all the talk of "job creation" but I wanted to make sure. I'm just curious as it will help shape my future arguments :)
Anyway I'll begin by responding to my opponent's three major contentions, highlighted below in bold.
1. Investing in space exploration means investing in useful technology even outside the realm of 'space.'
While it's true many things were developed as a direct or indirect result of space exploration, the same can be said for many other industries -- especially the military. For instance, the internet (which is arguably the most important invention of the century) was invented by the US Department of Defense in 1969 as a means of communication in case we were attacked by Russia . Night vision, digital photography, GPS and air trafficking radar are examples of military inventions .
Our world is inter-connected and many things affect each other, particularly pertaining to science, technology and the world at large. For instance we see Toyota commercials noting that the technology they've developed to protect people in car crashes is now being used to create football equipment that would minimize an impact injury . Similarly BP commercials talk about investing in the research of algae and IBM commercials frequently talk about their upcoming projects. So the point here is this: space exploration is not the only type of research that yields other inventions and helps progress us forward.
2. Space exploration has contributed to our understanding of the world, including the realization of climate change. Investing in this kind of exploration can help us come up with ways to improve the planet and save us from destruction.
This is true; however, why not just invest in studying climate or particular aspects of the universe? Also, once again this can be applied to many fields. Studying psychology has contributed to our understanding of humanity, and helped us deduce various inferences about mental illness, mental health, etc. which has tremendously impacted how we live, act and communicate with each other as human beings. Should more be invested into psychology? The trend seems to be that there are many significant fields, and while space exploration is one of them, it's not one of the most important and certainly not more important than global affairs.
3. Investing in space exploration can be instrumental in job creation.
Similarly, investing in infrastructure, clean energy and other projects can be instrumental to job creation. Creating jobs is a very significant global affair. I think this is a perfect segue to my contentions...
1. The fact that Pro is so supportive of learning more about climate change and job creation proves he's primarily concerned with global affairs: things that pertain to the earth and how it impacts society and human civilization. From Pro's definition, we know that space exploration specifically refers to studying other-worldly things and the cosmos. That means that aside from job creation (maybe), the other positive side effects from space exploration he mentions are not guaranteed but merely *possible* positive benefits.
2. Humans are largely responsible for destruction of the environment, and of course making a mess of the economy so that we lack jobs, etc. These are *global affairs* that we can help remedy with our own ingenuity without having to invest in space exploration. For instance politicians (blegh) and business-men are trying to pick up the pieces of the economy. Laws pertaining to protecting the environment can be passed to ensure limited destruction. These are all things that can be done as a start and for all intents and purposes "free."
3. Because job creation and specific issues/endeavors (like clean energy) are so important, we can invest in those areas specifically. While space exploration is important, we shouldn't consider it more important than the things and problems we are currently facing right here on earth. Learning more about the universe is always helpful -- and can admittedly have a positive effect on us in the long-run -- but in tough times you need to make tough decisions. The going-ons of the world are more important than the going-ons outside of the world, at least as it pertains to our consciousness and everyday lives.
4. Ultimately people should be able to invest in whatever they want (if that's where this debate was headed), meaning people can choose to invest their money however they see fit. I'd say to invest in more pressing paramount global affairs first (such as war, genocide, etc.) and then worry about space exploration. Either that, or continue to invest in space exploration but *less* than other more pertinent global affairs. As I've pointed out, good can come from investing in a lot of areas.
Back to Pro for now.
funnyhomeboy forfeited this round.
funnyhomeboy forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years 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: Obvious.
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.