The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Should people colonize Mars?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
puns has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 2,098 times Debate No: 97404
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Humans will remain humans no matter what planet. Before moving to another planet, lets look at our own first. People are dying, people are starving, we are running out of clean water and war is a big issue. It could be argued, if humanity was wiped out by a nuclear war, people on other planets would have a chance to survive. Would it really be worth it if they did? They would only hurt other planets and end up just like us. Despite this all, any expedition would have to fit the Coleman Sagen Equation which states there has to be a .0001 chance or less of contamination. That entire episode would cost great amounts of money which could be used for better purposes like gaining more clean water for the people already on Earth. Moving our problems to another planet will not help them, but intensify them.


Hello Puns.

As my first point, I do think that we should colonize Mars once the technology is available. If we think about the survival of the species, it becomes pretty scary to think that it would only take one catastrophic event, like an asteroid, to completely wipe us out. There have been 5 mass extinctions in Earth's history, so something large like the complete extinction of the human race is not off the table. If we were to colonize Mars, this would significantly increase the probability of survival since our complete existence would not be dependent on one planet.

Secondly, I'd like to challenge some of the points you presented in your argument.

You said that "People are dying, people are starving, we are running out of clean water and war is a big issue." All of this has been the case pretty much since the beginning of the human race. It wasn't until the last hundred years or so that we have been able to make MASSIVE strides in addressing these issues. Today, less people are dying from disease and famine, more people have clean water, and war, while a MASSIVE issue IMO, has been going on for centuries. So it seems like we've made some pretty significant strides in this arena already.

You go on to claim that we shouldn't colonize other planets because we would "hurt" them. You essentially asked why we should "move our problems" to other planets when we currently have problems on Earth. You will ALWAYS have some problem to address on earth. However, that is not a sufficient excuse to avoid the preservation of the human race if the opportunity was available. Besides, couldn't colonizing Mars allow for competing/warring cultures to separate themselves and possibly limit the possibilities of war? Couldn't the colonization of other planets lead to discoveries of much needed resources which could address many of the problems you're concerned about?

What is your concern with "hurting" other planets? If we're talking about the survival of the species (which is the primary interest in the colonization of Mars), it seems a bit counterproductive to put the supposed feelings or "health" of a floating rock in space ahead of the human race. Should humans aim to preserve the planets? Absolutely, no questions. But to say that we might cause Mars some damage by colonizing it, therefor we shouldn't, seems like you think the planet is more important than the entire human race. If that's the case, then why worry about war, clean water, or people killing each other? After all, if we just let these things keep on progressing (as you suggest they are), the human race will be wiped out and the planet will benefit.
Debate Round No. 1


In regards to clean water, we as a planet are running out of clean water, are focus should be on things like that, not heading to other planets. Lets say there indeed was a nuclear war and there were people on mars, the people there would only starve to death. You talked about how I said "hurting mars". Mars could have very sensitive specimens on it and going there could put them at risk. Humans tend to go somewhere, drain everything valuable from it, and move on. We would only be doing that to other planets.
What would we actually be accomplishing by colonizing mars? We would be losing great amounts of money, possibly lives, and for what? We have out own problems right here, we need to fix them before we go wandering off in space.


Perhaps you could share a source that confirms that "We as a planet are running out of clean water." If I'm not mistaken, clean water is scarce where there is political instability and a severe lack of market structure. However, this is far from the planet running out of clean water.

Even then, this doesn't address my point about the reasons for wanting to colonize Mars. Where there exists political stability and sound markets, clean water isn't really an issue. So, saying that we shouldn't increase the probability of the species surviving a catastrophic global event because we still have problems in the world doesn't seem like a rational argument. There will always be problems. But should the opportunity present itself for us colonize Mars without compromising life on earth, then we should jump at the opportunity.

You said "Mars could have very sensitive specimens on it and going there could put them at risk. Humans tend to go somewhere, drain everything valuable from it, and move on. We would only be doing that to other planets."

Where have humans drained everything valuable and then moved on? As I pointed out in round one, some points in your argument seem to conflict. Should humans be concerned with gathering the necessary resources for survival, or should the be worried about possibly disrupting the environment of Mars? You have to pick one. If humans are going to exist, we are going to need to use resources. This necessarily involves affecting the environment in some way. If you want to have anywhere close to the quality of life that we have now, this requires changing our environment to best fit us. This goal of not disrupting Mars and having enough resources for the human species to survive are in direct conflict. You can't make both arguments simultaneously. If it's true that we're running out of clean water, then this would necessarily involve some type of human intervention on Earth, which would likely affect our environment. If we take caution to your second point, then we shouldn't do this because it will disrupt earth. Yet, this is in direct conflict with your first point. You have to pick one.

"What would we actually be accomplishing by colonizing mars? We would be losing great amounts of money, possibly lives, and for what? We have out own problems right here, we need to fix them before we go wandering off in space."

I answered this question in round one. The probability of the human species surviving a catastrophic global event are slim. Colonizing another planet would increase our probability of survival. I don't think we should just up and spend all our resources pursuing this, especially if it compromises life on earth. However, I believe the cost is irrelevant to this debate topic. "Should people colonize Mars" assumes that we have the technology to do so, and that people would be able to live there. If we don't assume these things, then this debate is pointless. So I believe your concerns about costs are irrelevant to this particular debate.

Either way, I'm not arguing in favor of spending our resources and compromising the species to colonize Mars. My whole argument is that colonizing Mars, if we had the capacity to make it habitable, would increase the survival chances of the species. Of course this would involve significant investment, and it would depend on whether or not we could terraform the planet in the future. If we could, then colonizing Mars would be a plus.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by eligible 2 years ago
I"ve actually thought about that for a while. As interesting it would seem to colonize Mars and expand, I belive we should remain on earth and rather focus on issues we face today such as global warming. If we colonize Mars we"ll just end up thinking we have a plan B incase something were to happened to our planet. And also as some already have mentioned it could unsafe for all we know, and it"s a risk most people are not willing to take.

So I say focus on our current planet rather than colonizing another one in hope that it will be safe.
Posted by jreslan 2 years ago
There is life there but it is unsafe.
Posted by toocoolblue 2 years ago
The Radiation and Lack of Gravity make Mars or the Moon uninhabitable for humans.

The billions of dollars being wasted on these bridges to nowhere is sickening.

Stanford has probably developed the cure for cancer, and it has been stuck in development since 2010 largely due to lack of funding.

Meanwhile, we have 2 Billion dollar toy cars running around on Mars.
Posted by TheBenC 2 years ago
People always die. We are born with one goal, death. We all die. Get over the concept of death.

People starve because of choices, choices they make and choices others make. We have enough food produced every year to feed everyone. The rich choose to not spend money on feeding people. But at the same time I can't feel bad for people living in a desert where there is no water and no food. If you can't find food, kill food or grow food then you need to leave that place just like every other animal!

Clean water? Since when is clean water an issue? Filter and boil your water. There, BINGO, it is clean. If you live near a fresh water source then you can have clean water. Who are these people that cannot get clean water and why are they living so far from a fresh water source?

The whole argument against going to Mars is that people live in places without water and food. Well...that is their own fault. Get up and move closer to a place that is inhabitable! If they live in uninhabitable places then they will suffer.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.