The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens when expanding into the universe

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/27/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 651 times Debate No: 58259
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




advanced hominid decendants should be valued above homo sapiens in expanding into the universe

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?


I hope this debate turns out to be engaging and fun for both sides as I finally have the free time to return to DDO.

Now, under the mask of complex language, my opponent is raising the issue of how to treat new species, Novum Hominem, New Man. This is an intriguing issue, but here's the flaw. If a new species arrives, we'll already be gone. Natural selection is a complex issue that I could talk for a full paragraph on due to the last month of study I've returned from, but to put it simply, the previous species must be effectively wiped out for the new one to take dominance. Mammals didn't start getting bigger until the dinosaurs were wiped out by falling temperature from ash clouds. The arrival of the new species will be in the form of one new member, a mutation from humanity. Problem is, we're not exactly being wiped out by anything, population numbers are rising faster than ever. If we discovered a new species, a person distinguished from homo sapiens, how could we even say they were superior? New isn't superior.

Now, onto your scenario; leaving a dying solar system in a billion years, with the aim of terraforming a new world. The crew of this ship would need to be a multicultural, young, talented and co-operative group, capable of rebuilding society anew. A completely new species would not be born, rather, human would be adapting through natural selection, while not evolving, the two concepts working but not strictly in tandem.

I could try and throw in some weak humor here, but ultimately it's the same as asking; if rocks could talk, would we have to give them rights and stop mining them? They can't talk, they will never be able to, leaving the question seemingly pointlessly deep. See you next round,

Debate Round No. 1


con doesn't explain why we would necessarily be gone. if we expanded into space, humans could still be one earth, and humans could be on several other planets, while advanced hominids diverge further out in time and space. this doesn't require past species to die out, as with dinosaurs and mammals.

when we are dealing with astronomical time, it is possible to have hominid speciation from homo sapiens. it might have to be deliberate, but it could surely happen. we have advanced humans go to mars. they have advanced offspring. we have even more advanced of them go somewhere else. it might be too impractical, sure, i can't deny it. and you have a decent point, at least on earth, and it's hard for us to envision space expansion.... but we tend to make the environment fit us. we don't try to fit to the environment. the weak among us don't die, and they breed. this leads to nothing much in terms of macro evolution. but with space expansion, it is one would think surely possible.


My source is the Biology study I did for my exams last month.

Let me explain Natural Selection in relation to Evolution. When a mutation occurs in a gene, it alters the genotype, or genetic makeup of the organism. This in turn alters the phenotype, or physical output of that genotype. When a new phenotype appears which gives the organism a clear advantage over others, the organism can then live long enough to reproduce and spread their genotype further. Evolution is the mutations occuring, but Natural selection decides which stay.

Now that's I've explained that, let me point out that nothing threatens us to the point where a single mutation will be able to gain sway on a planet with over 8 billion people. Evolution has adapted us near perfectly for our environment.Evolution always happens, but it never stays unless it's allowed. Let me point something out. We are species which bites its own tongue. Our appendixes explode and through DNA replication, we produce thousands of malign cancer cells each day. We are a flawed species, but over the last few thousand years, we haven't changed much genetically. What advantage could possibly hold sway over the entire world?

Now, I've been wondering; How do you define superior to us? Mentally? Physically? There wouldn't be a large number of these people; it would be a single genepool to draw from. That's not healthy in terms of reproduction if you sent them at the forefront. If we actually discuss leaving earth and terraforming a new world, we would send our brightest and most skilled, not our best genetically.

See you next round,

Debate Round No. 2


i'm not sure why con continues to argue about how we've conformed the earth to ourselves, instead of us conforming to the earth. we're not talking about the earth any more, space expansion.

we could devise a way to expand, and create a better breed of human, that isn't unhealthy. it would take much longer to do it, but it could be done. one possible example, we send one hundred of our best. they are allowed to breed so as to keep it healthy. then they get to a thousand and send a hundred of their best. and repeat. i'm not an expert on this, but know those numbers aren't far off for what could be considered healthy, and it's not the exact numbers but the principle involved.

it might take longer to terraform a planet after planet. but if they ever got to a point where they started sending star ship after starhip out like star trek, you can see that isolation of species will relatively quickly start to occur. and if those ships were somehow able to produce more ships, which would really be pushing our technology, sure, it would tremendously speed up isolation and advancement of the species.


My point has been on two parts;

1; There is no way a new species could exist or be bred to exist, as it would never be capable of attaining dominance over homo sapiens. 100 of a new species would become inbred within a few generations and develop complications. There is no way this new species would be deemed superior to us, let alone to the point where we should grant additional rights above others.

2; There is no reason to leave Earth anyway. If we have the technology to terraform, we have solved the energy crisis. As you referenced Star Trek, Earth is a utopia in the original series. Overpopulation is an issue that will be dealt with in the next few years too. This video is a long one, but I recommend it not just as a source for the debate, but as an interesting video.

There will be no need to emigrate the world, and if space travel becomes a hobby, it will not be reserved for a new species. My point about us conforming Earth to our liking is about the fact that we need not conform ourselves. To suggest creating a better breed of human is.... well, it's disturbing. Eugenics is brought to mind when discussing the subject. There will never be a need to change the species so long as we manage our resources wisely, and if you depict a world with space travel and terraforming, then we already have.

On a side note, the Outer Space Treaty states that no country can claim other worlds as its own. Terraforming would then be an impossibility.

I hope you enjoyed the debate and I hope to debate again soon,

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 7 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: con spells better and refutes most of pro's point effectively

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