My 100th Debate: Assuming that the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should be colonized until 2200

Rebuttals A1 Things humans can do: Sure we can do it, that’s not denied. But shipping thousands of regular citizens to Mars has its issues. Scott Kelly US astronaut along with Musa Manarov just completed a yearlong International Space Station (ISS) mission to study the effects of space on the body [1] As you can see from the data it takes two weeks for the immune system to bounce back from space. 25% of muscle mass is lost in the 1st two weeks in space and takes a month to regenerate once back on Earth. Three months before pre flight body mass is recouped. After just 6 months in space the structural integrity of bones never returns to pre flight status and radiation exposure increases risk of cancer and neurological issues for a lifetime. According to “NASA's Efforts to Manage Health and Human Performance Risks for Space Exploration” (2015) report [2 p.40-44] there are 30 health concerns pertaining to deep space travel. The most serious are: Continuous CO2 exposure (6-20% over normal in space craft), behavioral/psychiatric issues due to long term confinement in a small craft, which are considered highly consequential (ISS is a bit longer than a football field [3]), There’s no phoning home or resupply craft to break up the monotony. Bone fractures due to loss of bone mass and integrity, cardiovascular issues due to micro gravity and radiation, in-flight medical capabilities should an event occur, they are less than stellar; inadequate nutrition due to limits of food storage and renal stone formation. Kidney stone are not a picnic to begin with, imagine in tight quarters? Ability to treat illness with drugs due to the unknowns of their effects in space and limitations on what can be carried, vision impairment and space radiation exposure sickness. Space radiation exposure is much greater in deep space than on ISS. The Van Allen Belts limit its exposure, not so in deep space. Beside lifelong potential for cancer and neurological issues, prolong exposure to space radiation can contribute of degenerative tissue disorders and infertility. Advanced shielding alone cannot augment exposure to galactic cosmic rays [2]. So, we have our colonist after 7 months in cramped quarters leaving the ship, with a good probability of being bonkers and suffering from multiple impairments, some lasting a lifetime; a lifetime being about 68 day by MIT researchers’ estimates if the Mars One project goes ahead [4]. To recuperate from some of these illnesses gravity is necessary, artificial gravity for stationary structures as yet to be developed [5]. Mars’ gravity is 36% of Earth’s. All just because we can? A2 Possible: Since the world is over populated as this debate assumes, Mars would give us much more space. But we have space here on Earth as stated in opening arguments. But, I will rephrase the figure previously given. 71% of Earth is water. Of the remaining 29% of surface area, 14% is dessert, 27% high mountains and arctic terrains. 56% of the Earth is not inhabited due to inhospitable environments [6]. Why risk the dangers and ills of space? Granted, when Europeans arrived in America to establish colonies they did not have technology, but they did have resupply ships coming and going between America and Europe with the wind to propel ships and only the weather as a concern, not radiation, or life support system failure. Furthermore, basic building materials, food, water, air and gravity were at hand and did not require importing. Unlike colonizing Mars, everything would have to be shipped at great cost. Eliminating the cost of building rockets and fuels alone saves between $30-100 billion [7]. Mars One claims of 6 billion for a single trip, which a one way ticket; price does not reflect the 3 unmanned prerequisite missions [13, 14]. You suggest we bring even water from Earth for plants? Fresh water here is at a premium and you want to ship it off planet [8]? At 8.34 pounds per gallon, that’s a lot of weight and fuel use to push it through space. A3 Liberty: Sure 10’s of thousands want the adventure of space and Mars. It’s their choice they can pay for it themselves, but not at the expense of NASA tax payer dollars where greater numbers can be helped with the funds to remediate overpopulation. Private corporations can do as they please, but there will be ramifications (discussed later). The multi billions used to send people to Mars can better be utilized here at home. A few thousand people will not solve the overpopulation problem here on Earth. Thousands are a mere drop in the bucket, an unwise decision to utilize so many resources for such few numbers. Inhabiting uninhabitable areas on Earth serves greater numbers of people for the greater good. A 4 Not enough space: Again there’s 56% of the Earth to make habitable that will enable the spreading of people over greater distances. As you said yourself temps on Mars are similar to Antarctica; there’s air and gravity there, no worrries in that front. No need for multibillion dollar space craft or suffering the illnesses of space. These locations are a much shorter distance away. Shipping cost to another planet a far more costly and benefits much fewer people. Future plans such as these: Undersea cities [9] as well as a skyscraper community in the Sahara As well as an Antarctic city (above) All are self sustaining alternatives where all the materials required are in our own backyard. A 5 Resources: Deuterium is produced on Earth from water, our Oceans have a bit of it [10], and is used in Nuclear power plants to create heavy water. Nuclear plants are being phased out all over the world due to upkeep cost and no safe storage for nuclear waste; very harmful to the environment. [11]. Solar and wind power are the fuels of the future. As for other useful things, you did not specify so I’ll consider the point null. A6 Already working on it/ Dependency: No one’s efforts are wasted. The technology developed for potential Mars habitats can be utilized to colonize uninhabitable areas of Earth. Mars is a cold pace, so is Antarctica, Siberia, and the North Polar Regions. Mars shelters need to produce air; high mountains and beneath the Oceans can utilize this tech. No one need lose their jobs. Besides, space will be continued to be explored for knowledge. So the rocket scientist can stay employed as well. No one said anything about banning people from going to Mars, just not for the purpose of colonization to relieve overpopulation. The small numbers will not alleviate a thing. A7 Beneficial: Under the Space Treaty of 1967 no celestial body can be appropriated by any nation. Claims can only be on the property brought onto a celestial body. If NASA puts down a space pod, the US can claim only the pod, but not the ground it sits on. However, a loop hole in the law might allow for private industries to own celestial property for economic purposes. Therefore, under the law, not be part of, nor have protections of the nation they are from [12]. A corporation would have rights to set up their own form of governance; which of course would be profit motivated. The civil liberties you now enjoy might not exist under a corporate regime. Then another business comes along, say.. from China and buys an existing manner will colonizing Mars expand countries or governments; only corporations with their individual systems of law. These very corporations can legally purchase the land under the NASA pod. I fail to see how the human condition would be made better. A 7 month trip in a cramped spaceship, you land sick and compromised for a lifetime and then are under the governance of a corporation? I think there was a 60’s movie called “Slaves in Space.” I will present my defense of Fire-wings rebuttals in the next round. To you my valued opponent. 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. https://oig.nasa.gov... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://www.thespacereview.com... 6. https://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. https://en.wikipedia.org... 11. http://tinyurl.com... 12. http://www.thenewatlantis.com... 13. http://edition.cnn.com... 14. http://www.mars-one.com...