should there be NASA be less used in America
Debate Rounds (3)
1. Mainly, the fact that we didn't accomplish much does not mean that we will not.
2. NASA has found out much about the universe and will still find out much about it every single day. We can not simply ignore the universe around us because not only we are destroying the planet we live at, but also because there might be more out there for us.
3. The universe offers dangers. Many fiction depictions of the end of the world show a very common occurrence: the lack of vigilance striking the humanity with the end of the world.
Of course that saying that maintaining NASA is preventing the end of the world is also something not very strong to say, but I would point out that whatever the danger is, we should watch for it carefully, as the dinosaurs didn't.
It is, indeed, very expensive to maintain such research. However, we might also point out that most cutting edge technology, in any given given time in history, would be costly. And the reason why the technology that was really advanced years ago is cheap today, is because we didn't stop to invest and work on it, until we knew enough about it to integrate it with our costs, needs and with our budget.
Finally, NASA is responsible for many inventions that are not as much space-related as you would think, but have a significant impact in your life. To name a few useful contributions from NASA to the world, the agency is responsible for the invention or improvement of cordless technology, water filters, long-distance calls and smoke detectors. (http://science.howstuffworks.com...)
To close my argument, one single word: satellites.
Again, the fact that we have not found much about something does not prove we will not (it also does not prove we will). It is likely that our discoveries in the universe will teach us more about ourselves and our planet itself than many things we could be researching in earth itself.
The scenarios we could suppose here are endless. They could range from a race to get water in Jupiter (there is water in JupitEr) to trying to clean the space garbage.
Investing money in NASA is attempting to understand the future and past without the wrong and primitive assumption that we are the center of this universe, that we will only find answers within ourselves, that we are alone.
War will eventually extend to the space. China, the Russia and the United States developed earth to space weapons and during the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, space to earth weapons were also designed, as much as in the United States. Investing in NASA is powering research to learn how to be ready for a proper defense to this attacks.
(http://www.fas.org..., http://www.sciencedirect.com..., http://www.time.com...)
For science, what we have discovered until a point is resumed to the ability we had here in earth. As soon as NASA (and other space agencies around the globe) could research the outer space, much more was discovered and the usefulness of this research, that is contested here, are necessary to any need we might come across because it represents our understanding of how it works, where it is. It is identification and capability to say that we are aware of the situation and, if we need to do something about it, we understand what is around our planet and have the means to go there and act.
Halting the full amount of investment NASA receives would be halting a very important process of science development for the whole world.
fredman15 forfeited this round.
feen forfeited this round.
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.