The Instigator
emospongebob527
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
eastcoastsamuel
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The Human Race Will Eventually Go Extinct. It's inevitable.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 5 votes the winner is...
eastcoastsamuel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,495 times Debate No: 26025
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

emospongebob527

Pro

Today's argument is about whether or not the human race will eventually go extinct.

1. Acceptance
2. Main Definitions/Presentation of Main Argument
3 & 4. Rebuttals
5. Resolution/Closing Argument

Hint: Definitions can be used in other rounds besides R1

Rules-
No semantics
No trolling
No profanity
No vulgarity

Violating any of the rules results in immediate termination of the debate.
eastcoastsamuel

Con

I accept the terms and I am ready to debate.
Debate Round No. 1
emospongebob527

Pro

The Dying of The Sun-

How old is the Sun? Actually it's middle-aged. It was formed about 4,500,000,000 (four and a half billion) years ago and we expect it to carry on pretty much as it is now for a few billion years yet - so no surprises in our near future.
Earth's fate
Earth's ultimate fate is precarious. As a red giant, the Sun will have a maximum radius beyond the Earth's current orbit, 1 AU (1.5"1011 m), 250 times the present radius of the Sun.[106] However, by the time it is an asymptotic giant branch star, the Sun will have lost roughly 30% of its present mass due to a stellar wind, so the orbits of the planets will move outward. If it were only for this, Earth would probably be spared, but new research suggests that Earth will be swallowed by the Sun owing to tidal interactions.[106] Even if Earth should escape incineration in the Sun, still all its water will be boiled away and most of its atmosphere will escape into space. Even during its current life in the main sequence, the Sun is gradually becoming more luminous (about 10% every 1 billion years), and its surface temperature is slowly rising. The Sun used to be fainter in the past, which is possibly the reason life on Earth has only existed for about 1 billion years on land. The increase in solar temperatures is such that in about another billion years the surface of the Earth will likely become too hot for liquid water to exist, ending all terrestrial life.

A star"s life-cycle depends on its mass. Stars like the Sun spend most of their lives quietly eating up the hydrogen in their centre. That means their temperature and size stay very much the same for billions of years.

When the Sun is about 7 billion years old it will slowly start to change and will become bigger and cooler. By the time it is 10 billion years old it will have changed into a red giant and its atmosphere will stretch out to near where the Earth is today.

The Sun will grow old in much the same way as humans do. In a few billion years time it will be unrecognisable as the Sun we know today- a bit like the difference between an 80-year old person and a photograph of them as a baby!

Under-sea coral? Enchanted castles? Space serpents? These eerie, dark, pillar-like structures are actually columns of hydrogen gas and dust where new stars are being formed. This picture of the Eagle Nebula was taken with the Hubble Space Telescope. The nebula is 7000 light years from Earth and is huge - the largest pillar is about four light years from top to bottom!

The Sun and stars don't seem to change much year after year so how can we know about their lifecycles? One method is to have computer programs to calculate how a star evolves as it uses up its energy resources. Another way is to observe many stars. We see many different kinds of stars and we assume the reason for this is that we are seeing stars at different stages of their lifecycle. We can then begin to build up an explanation of how and when they change.

It's a bit like observing all the people in a town centre. We assume that they are all basically the same kind of animal (human beings) but that the main differences are caused by them being at different stages of their lifecycle (age). Fortunately, we don't have the complication of male and female stars!

When and how will the Sun die?

The Sun will not die in the way we know plants and animals die. But in a few billion years it will have changed so much it will not be recognisable as the Sun we know today.

Calculations show that, as the hydrogen fuel in the core is used up, the outer parts of the Sun will begin to expand. The Sun will turn from a 'yellow dwarf ' into a 'red giant'. And it really means 'giant'! It will grow so big that it will almost engulf the Earth in its orbit. The outer atmosphere will eventually be puffed out in a gentle explosion and the Sun will be at the centre of a planetary nebula - just like this. , or maybe like the one below. Can you see the old star in the middle of that nebula?

If The Sun Dies NASA
If you put a steamy cup of coffee in the refrigerator, it wouldn"t immediately turn cold. Likewise, if the sun simply "turned off" (which is actually physically impossible), the Earth would stay warm"at least compared with the space surrounding it"for a few million years. But we surface dwellers would feel the chill much sooner than that.
Within a week, the average global surface temperature would drop below 0"F. In a year, it would dip to "100". The top layers of the oceans would freeze over, but in an apocalyptic irony, that ice would insulate the deep water below and prevent the oceans from freezing solid for hundreds of thousands of years. Millions of years after that, our planet would reach a stable "400", the temperature at which the heat radiating from the planet"s core would equal the heat that the Earth radiates into space, explains David Stevenson, a professor of planetary science at the California Institute of Technology.
Although some microorganisms living in the Earth"s crust would survive, the majority of life would enjoy only a brief post-sun existence. Photosynthesis would halt immediately, and most plants would die in a few weeks. Large trees, however, could survive for several decades, thanks to slow metabolism and substantial sugar stores. With the food chain"s bottom tier knocked out, most animals would die off quickly, but scavengers picking over the dead remains could last until the cold killed them.
Humans could live in submarines in the deepest and warmest parts of the ocean, but a more attractive option might be nuclear- or geothermal-powered habitats. One good place to camp out: Iceland. The island nation already heats 87 percent of its homes using geothermal energy, and, says astronomy professor Eric Blackman of the University of Rochester, people could continue harnessing volcanic heat for hundreds of years.
Of course, the sun doesn"t merely heat the Earth; it also keeps the planet in orbit. If its mass suddenly disappeared, the planet would fly off, like a ball swung on a string and suddenly let go.
If the Sun dies out.........
1. The Earth would cool down to -400 C', it is evident humans or any other life forms could not survive at this temperature.
2. The Earth would lose it's gravitational attraction to the Sun and therefore plummeting to an endless abyss forever, although humans would die because no gravitational sorce is controlling Earth and we would fly away XD

http://www.popsci.com...
http://www.suntrek.org...
eastcoastsamuel

Con

I oppose the resolution, "The human race will eventually go extinct, it's inevitable." I define the human race to be the species of homo sapiens, and the term, "extinct", to be "to no longer existing" [1] in reference to species. I base this opposition on a few points. 1.) The human race can develop technology that allows to escape the Earth and Sun and move to another planet or galaxy. [2] 2.) The human race is adaptable to situations; if things start to get too hot or supplies are running low, then humans can adapt to those situations and find ways to survive. There are numerous scenarios and situations where people were able to survive precarious situations, such as lack of water and food, and make it out alive. [3] [4]

Sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.nbi.ku.dk...
[3] http://www.senoryermo.com...
[4] http://matadornetwork.com...
Debate Round No. 2
emospongebob527

Pro

"The human race can develop technology that allows to escape the Earth and Sun and move to another planet or galaxy."

Con claims that such technology can be developed, but he does not explain the technology or give logic and reason behind it. I fully explained my Round two arguments and give reason and logic behind it.......... Con lacks this.

"The human race is adaptable to situations; if things start to get too hot or supplies are running low, then humans can adapt to those situations and find ways to survive. There are numerous scenarios and situations where people were able to survive precarious situations, such as lack of water and food, and make it out alive."

Again this does not match with my method of extinction, In my method of extinction I explained that the Earth would reach -100 C' in a year which is -212 F' humans may be able to adapt to this but the oceans top layers would freeze....... In a million year temperatures would dip down to -400 C'........ Humans could not adapt to this and they would die........... This would happen:

Although some microorganisms living in the Earth"s crust would survive, the majority of life would enjoy only a brief post-sun existence. Photosynthesis would halt immediately, and most plants would die in a few weeks. Large trees, however, could survive for several decades, thanks to slow metabolism and substantial sugar stores. With the food chain"s bottom tier knocked out, most animals would die off quickly, but scavengers picking over the dead remains could last until the cold killed them.

Also, Con claims that there have been numerous scenarios and situations where people were able to survive precarious situations, such as lack of water and food, and make it out alive. Again he claims this but does not justify it.
Con lacks structure and information........... Thank you......

http://www.popsci.com......
http://www.suntrek.org......
eastcoastsamuel

Con

First, I'd like to mention that the arguments I typed were opening statements, not full-fledged arguments. So if those lack "structure and information" it's because they are statements and just that, not actual arguments.

Now for my real arguments:

1.) According to my opponent, the sun will die in a few billion years. This means that humanity has plenty of time to develop technology to escape the Earth and the solar system. There are many ways this can be done. One way via "electric solar wind sail" which is popularly considered by the scientific community, according to a 2008 article by Science Daily [1]. With enough money and time put into this project, it could become the fastest man-made device ever built, with speeds potentially reaching nineteen miles a second [2]. This can potentially allow the human race to escape the dying Earth and reach other planets and solar systems. We have no clue what technology might be in a million year's time. If it is developed enough, we could easily escape the solar system.

2.) If we cannot escape the Earth and the expanding Sun, then we can still develop technology that can allow to survive the harsh conditions that come about as a result of the Sun dying. Humans could survive the harsh conditions by being in submarines in deep, warm parts of the ocean or being in nuclear-powered habitats [3]. Plus, it is possible that the process of evolution enables us to survive the harsh conditions that the loss of the Earth would present. Keep in mind that the death of the Sun will occur in a few billion years; we could evolve into higher forms of life that allows us to live and thrive.

Sources:
[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com...
[2] http://www.popsci.com...
[3] http://www.popsci.com...
Debate Round No. 3
emospongebob527

Pro

"According to my opponent, the sun will die in a few billion years. This means that humanity has plenty of time to develop technology to escape the Earth and the solar system. There are many ways this can be done. One way via "electric solar wind sail" which is popularly considered by the scientific community, according to a 2008 article by Science Daily [1]. With enough money and time put into this project, it could become the fastest man-made device ever built, with speeds potentially reaching nineteen miles a second. This can potentially allow the human race to escape the dying Earth and reach other planets and solar systems. We have no clue what technology might be in a million year's time. If it is developed enough, we could easily escape the solar system."

Going to other planets would not be a good idea, all the planets in the solar system lack two things: food source and habitability :

Mars- The surface is thought to be mostly basalt, covered by a fine layer of iron oxide dust that has the consistency of talcum powder. Iron oxide(rust as it is commonly called) gives the planet its characteristic red hue.
Humans could not sustain themselves nutritionally on these compounds, and they would die........

Jupiter- Have you ever wondered what it might feel like to stand on Jupiters surface? Well, there's a problem. Jupiter is made up almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, with some other trace gases. There is no firm surface on Jupiter, so if you tried to stand on the planet, you sink down and be crushed by the intense pressure inside the planet.
Jupiter wouldn't be livable...... No matter the technological advancements, it would not be habitable because of its surface.

Uranus- Uranus is a ball of ice and gas, so you can"t really say that it has a surface. If you tried to land a spacecraft on Uranus, it would just sink down through the upper atmosphere of hydrogen and helium, and into the liquid icy center.
Again this would not be habitable because humans couldn't live on the surface.

Saturn- Saturn is a ball made up almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. The density and temperature changes the deeper into the planet you go, but Saturn can't be said to have a solid surface. If you tried to walk on the surface of Saturn, you would fall into the planet, suffering higher temperatures and pressures until you were crushed inside the planet. Again, we wouldn't be able to live on it because of its surface.

Pluto- The surface area of Pluto is 1.795 x 107 square kilometers; about 0.033% the surface area of Earth. Pluto is so small that it couldn't possibly house the Earth's population now even less so in a billions of years.

"If we cannot escape the Earth and the expanding Sun, then we can still develop technology that can allow to survive the harsh conditions that come about as a result of the Sun dying. Humans could survive the harsh conditions by being in submarines in deep, warm parts of the ocean or being in nuclear-powered habitats [3]. Plus, it is possible that the process of evolution enables us to survive the harsh conditions that the loss of the Earth would present. Keep in mind that the death of the Sun will occur in a few billion years; we could evolve into higher forms of life that allows us to live and thrive."

My opponent states that submarines and nuclear-powered habitats would be a formidable method against the death of the sun. But he also has to remember that once the sun turns to a red giant about a billion years after that the Earth will completely freeze over and these methods would be ineffective. As far as his second point, the process of evolution would not allow us to survive life without Sun............ Plants would die......... No food source....... No matter how developed we are we couldn't live without food....
eastcoastsamuel

Con

First, I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate and for his arguments.

My opponent says that it would be nearly impossible to land on other planets in order to escape the Earth. Keep in mind; the Sun's death is billions of years in the future. Technology can easily evolve and find a way around the problems of finding food, water and warmth easily. Technology can find a way around the problems of landing on the outer planets and can transport water and seeds that can be used to grow plants and animals to eat and grow other animals. Food and water has been transported on the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station, so it is completely possible that centuries from now mass amounts of water and food can be transported from planet to planet. My opponent also mentions that the process of evolution would not solve the problem of obtaining resources that we need. However, we have no idea what we will become in a few million years, let alone in a few billion; we could adapt to a world of less resources. If birds can change their beaks over time so they can access food easier, then it is entirely possible that humans can adapt to less food and water available. It's only a matter of time and energy.
Debate Round No. 4
emospongebob527

Pro

"My opponent says that it would be nearly impossible to land on other planets in order to escape the Earth. Keep in mind; the Sun's death is billions of years in the future. Technology can easily evolve and find a way around the problems of finding food, water and warmth easily. Technology can find a way around the problems of landing on the outer planets and can transport water and seeds that can be used to grow plants and animals to eat and grow other animals. Food and water has been transported on the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station, so it is completely possible that centuries from now mass amounts of water and food can be transported from planet to planet. My opponent also mentions that the process of evolution would not solve the problem of obtaining resources that we need. However, we have no idea what we will become in a few million years, let alone in a few billion; we could adapt to a world of less resources. If birds can change their beaks over time so they can access food easier, then it is entirely possible that humans can adapt to less food and water available. It's only a matter of time and energy."

My opponent has ignored my argument: The Outer Planets are not habitable....... They are Gas Giants, thus no matter the technological advancements, we wouldn't be able to inhabit them.. They are masses of gas.... Not solid.... Doing anything that would allow us to surface gas would defy the laws of physics. It's impossible. My opponent is correct in one sense, humans could adapt to live longer with food intake. But this would still end up in us going extinct because we would eventually die no matter how we evolve to live without food.
eastcoastsamuel

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for his arguments and for creating this debate.

My opponent's main contention for this debate is that the human race will be extinct due to the Sun expanding and dying over the process of hundreds of millions of years. That is the key phrase here: hundreds of millions of years. The Sun will take that much time to expand to a point where the Earth's inhabitants will begin to be affected. Technology can--and in all possibility, will--evolve to a point to where we can escape the dying Earth and move to outer planets and moons. Planets that we can escape to are Mars and possibly Uranus (if we can develop technology that will prevent us from breaking through its surface). This is not even mentioning the numerous moons and dwarf planets that is possible to land on. My opponent also mentioned the lack of water and food on the outer planets, but it is possible that we can transport food and water to other planets. In fact, this was being done on the Space Shuttle, and is still being done on the International Space Station. If it can be done now, then it can be done--even on a mass scale--millions of years from now.

My opponent also mentions that even though we can adapt to live with less food, we will still die because we can't evolve to live without food. This can be challenged in two ways:

a.) We do not know what we will evolve into in a few million years, let alone a few billion, so the claim that we cannot evolve to live without food cannot be made because we do not know what we will become in the future.

b.) If evolution fails to resolve the problem of finding food and water, then technology can solve that problem: it is possible to store water and food somewhere on or under the Earth, perhaps in nuclear-powered shelters or submarines, where food and water can be stored for humans, animals and plants.

In conclusion, my opponent has not been able to show that humans will be rendered extinct due to the Sun expanding and wiping out the Sun. Technology will have heavily changed in the billions of years it takes for the Sun to fail, and human beings can escape the Earth, moving on to other planets and galaxies. If we are not able to escape the Earth, then we can survive in nuclear-powered shelters or submarines deep under the surface of the Earth, or have evolved to a point where we need few resources to survive. I therefore strongly urge for a vote in negation of the resolution. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
D*mnit AlwaysMoreThanYou >:(
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
D*mnit imabench! >:(
Posted by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
I would like to thank all of you for voting :)
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Those interested in the possible escapes for humans in the distant future might look at Prof. Kaku's "Physics of the Future" talk, http://mkaku.org... His books, "Physics of the Future" and "Physics of the Impossible" make it seem that technology is likely to win over inevitable extinction in a matter of hundreds of years rather than billions.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Defining the human race as "homo sapiens" adds another method of extinction.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
emospongebob527eastcoastsamuelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: While Con's arguments weren't tremendous, I think he wins the debate. Pro had to show that the human race would inevitably become extinct, but his arguments were adequately countered by Con's theorizing on technology that might let humans escape the end proposed by Pro. Like Roy and Bench said, Pro should have focused on the end of the universe, which is much more likely to make humans extinct than the sun dying.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
emospongebob527eastcoastsamuelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro resorted entirely on the "once the sun goes, mankind goes" argument and then tried to discredit con's shaky arguments about technology in the future, rather then just fall back on the hypothesis that one day even the universe will come, as Roy pointed out. Cons arguments were very weak but they were still enough to prove that humanity could survive the death of the sun, which Pro did not adequately overcome in the debate.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 4 years ago
kkjnay
emospongebob527eastcoastsamuelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: close
Vote Placed by JorgeLucas 4 years ago
JorgeLucas
emospongebob527eastcoastsamuelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con could have used the space travel argument more effectively than he did.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
emospongebob527eastcoastsamuelTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro erred in including, "It's inevitable." Con only had to disprove the inevitability, which he did adequately. Pro might have upped the ante by pointing to the end of the universe --quite a ways into the future-- when everything goes dark everywhere. But not the end of sun, because there will still be energy to exploit.