advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens in expanding into the universe
Debate Rounds (3)
eventually man will have to expand off of earth, or we will go extinct.
wouldnt it be wise to allow first the most advanced of us to leave and expand civilization? this very well could (and perhaps should) eventually lead to hominid speciation.
we could have a loyalist approach to it, and argue that our species should be of higher priority than allowing or promoting our decendants to be of superior quality, albeit a different species. but why should we take this approach? are they not both our decendants either way?
sure, maybe we can try to both save homo sapiens, and allow or try for advancing homind species. but if we have to choose a focus, isn't it better to focus on a superior decendant?
in the astronomical aspect of time, we will be expanding into the universe, or die. i would hope we expand. mars, to the moons of jupiter where there's more energy than here, and so on. it might be a remote possibility that we evolve more, given we conform the environmetn to us, but it's a possibility as we expand deep into space and become mroe isolated.
if we were to try to speed evolution, it would be less inetivable. space ships like star trek never to return leave. pushing our current technology, but if those ships could then create ships, it would speed up even more.
eg, a hundred of our best go out. they breed a thousand to prevent inbreeding. then a hundred of their best. then they breed to a thousdand, on and on. evolution would be inevitable.
the choice will be a choice we have to make at some point in the far future. i'm merely asking us to ask the question now. con can't even get off home base to first base, as he is caught up in not even wanting to consider it.
pro is living in a world of theory and isn't based in logic at all, he has yet to address why humans couldn't poplulate mars, as they plan too
space expansion is possible. it is rooted in reality. it is doable. time travel is merely theroetical, and as far as we could be concerned, not based in reality. (there are even logical paradoxes that would be involved with it) con has to resort to non reality to support his arguments, which only goes to show that his points are themselves not based on reality, and are illogical. irrational says it best.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.