As a Country, the US Needs to Focus on Off World Endeavors

Thank you again, to Con, who provided another quick response. I would again like to point out that we are already past the level of sustainability in our resource consumption. As con has said, and I agree with, this usage is not distributed equally, but it should be, and refined to be made more efficient. The problem here, is that despite having enough to supply a world population of 10 billion, we are nearing that number, and are predicted to surpass it in less than 60 years. If topsoil erosion continues at the current rate, paired with climate change, farming industries are looking at lower and lower yields. This paired with the population growth, the current rate of consumption (which is excessive for 7 billion people) will be necessary and even obsolete for a nearly 12 billion strong population at the end of the century. Con also states " that we provide 10 billion people's worth of food and that will only be increased by adding more people, logically". Brainpower is not the only factor and constraint working to limit productivity, there are also, as stated before, climate and soil conditions. Given we destroy soil at a much faster rate than it is naturally produced, which is a multi thousand year process for soil to accumulate the needed nutrients and raw ingredients to make it productive, and artificially making soil is a resource intensive process that is both expensive and difficult, rendering it inefficient until further notice. Con has tried to assert that more people will only result in higher food production, completely ignoring other constraints. This has been disproved. My opponent then turns to aquaponics (I assume) when he mentions the near infinite food source the ocean provides. He has completely neglected to show that one, our oceans our being over fished, and aquaponics is just as questionable as what I am about to propose. Fisheries reported a peak in 1989, when about 90 million tonnes of food was removed from the ocean, and ever since then yields have dropped and stagnated. This has clearly been going on for some time. Con proposes that we turn to the ocean for food solutions, but we already have, and have strained that ecological system as well. Apex predators continue to disappear, and species are pushed to the verge of extinction. If our population is to rise, and we turn to the ocean (which already figures into the food estimated to be able to feed 10 billion) as con suggests, then over fishing is likely only to be exacerbated, due to its heavier use. With less and less yields, we will not be able to feed our population will subsidies from the ocean by the end of the century. Now we turn to aquaponics. While it is a promising solution, it can only grow certain crops, excluding things such as roots, and, it is heavily dependent upon wildlife, which would be found naturally, or grown, which has been proven to be inefficient. Just to support the above statement, using the basic principles of ecology, if we are to raise healthy stock in fisheries, these animals require more calories to grow than they can be consumed for. How do we provide this extra intake you may ask? Well it used to be provided from grains, insects, and other fish. But as stated before, more nutrients were put into the fish than were received, due to most of it being used for internal functions, with only around 10% being stored. So in turn, humans who consume the fish are only getting roughly 10% of what food resources they put into raising the livestock. For all intents and purposes, pairing aquaponics with fisheries is resource intensive and not efficient. The alternative is natural acquiring fish. The problem with this is logically it deducts from the already decreasing output of the fishing industry. However, if fishing industries continue to over fish, and will be forced to in order to feed the growing population within this century, then they will be negatively impacting aquaponics. Since there is an inverse relationship between the two, you can only use one or the other on large scales, which I have to assume Con is alluding to in the "infinite potential" for food the ocean provides. Even then, aquaponics is flawed, as it is difficult to perform on mass scale, and if not performed properly can harm the environment in a variety of ways. Con has stated that the ocean provides a better solution for food. This has been disproved. Now if we turn to eating these filter feeders and micro organisms, they are not an infinite resource as con suggests. They are just as vulnerable to over consumption as any other organism on this planet is. As to water. To conclude that our oceans offer more drinkable water than space it what is simply ludicrous. From Mars, to moons, to comets, to even asteroids, there is an abundance of easily treatable water out there. You have already conceded that water desalinization is difficult and intensive, and in turn out of our reach at the moment for large scale production. I find it hypocritical then, to claim harvesting water from space is not a viable solution, because it is out of reach, when your own solution has yet to be proven. On top of this, we can both agree that our fresh water reserves are being used 3 times faster than they can replenish, and again, will not provide enough clean water for the population increase to come. Con tried to assert that the ocean is a better solution for potable water. This has been disproved. From what I can gather, your entire disclaimer against my argument is based on the fact that I promote research towards this, thus proving that it is not currently a viable solution, while in turn, much of what you claim has the same limits. Both of our proposed solutions need research, but space is by FAR more profitable. For instance, I cite Europa, one of the many moons orbiting Jupiter. You called out the kuiper belt and ort cloud for having extreme distance from our planet. Europa is much closer. Scientists estimate that if all its liquid water was to be formed into a sphere, it would be 1090 miles in diameter, compared to the Earth, with one 860 miles in diameter. This also fails to take in the amount of ice on the moon. So in one instance, you have more water than the Earth has in, all compiled in one location. That in and of itself should illustrate the potentials of space. Con has these same "flaws" in his own argument, thus making it invalid against mine. As to the solutions for energy space has to offer, orbital solar arrays positioned around the sun would be nearly unlimited in their production of clean, usable power. These stations are not confined by weather, nor position. They have nearly optimal efficiency, and are proven to be adequate to power entire complexes, such as the ISS. Earth only receives about one part in 2.3 billion of the suns total output, but these orbital facilities are being looked into, and thought to be the key to our energy problems here. I think that alone warrants heavy investment into space. Con has tried to assert that space has no energy solutions. That has been disproved. As for food production in space, organisms have been shown to grow faster and stronger in recent studies aboard the ISS, given they no longer have environmental constraints. Greenhouses in orbit are completely feasible, as they do not limit the crops that can be grown as aquaponics does. Given we could colonize and establish such facilities on the Moon and Mars, it is entirely possible for agriculture to be expanded into orbit, without some for the rather pressing concerns of mass aquaponics. Con has stated that space offers little to no potential in the food sector. That has been disproved. Your only response to the perfectly good logic behind avoiding an extinction event is simply the likelihood of getting hit by an asteroid, which is not the only extinction level event that could effect the species, and that it is equally as likely to hit any other world we colonize. I was beating my head on the table for this one. All I have to say is this. If we expand, what is the likelihood both planets we could colonize in theory get hit, within the same period of time? Despite the low odds of an extinction event, spreading out makes it increasingly less likely. Never put all your eggs in one basket. Con tried to assert that colonization does nothing to alleviate the likelihood of an extinction event. This has been disproved. Technology. I laughed here. We have already started to exploit space more than we ever had the ocean in this sense. Satellites, both military and civilian, as well as research that has been directly funneled down to everyday life goes to show the potential of space. Con tries to assert the ocean has more technological potential than space. This has been disproved. Research was directed at you notion about how little of the ocean is known, to which I replied even less is known about space. I would certainly agree that this has been one of the more cerebral and challenging debates I have has as well. Thank you to you too! Sources: http://news.nationalgeographic.com... http://www.nss.org... https://www.worldwildlife.org... https://www.nrcs.usda.gov... https://www.scientificamerican.com... https://sites.google.com... http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com... http://www.space.com...