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

So given that I never established any guidelines for the debate, and never intended for round 5 to be a conclusion only round, and as a result Con and I are permitted to make use of it in the form of another argument with a brief conclusion. Con has brought up the idea of using mariculture as the viable solution to the already proven imminent (At our current rate) food crisis. I will use this round to contend [1] that mariculture is not the solution that we should pursue, and in turn the ocean. Point [2] will be that the solutions that I have proposed, which I have proven are objectively viable excluding the technological limitations, are not nearly as far out as Con makes them out to be. In particular, basic mining principles for bodies within our solar system will be a usable and efficient option within the next 25 - 50 years. In addition, I just want to address [3] Cons continuing argument against the extinction event proposal introduced in round one, which he concedes stands up to logic, but not to science, which I will disprove. On a side note, neither the ocean nor space will solve the problem of distribution. This is the problem of human society and society alone. [1] Mariculture Con makes the argument that the practice of mariculture is the foremost and best option that the ocean provides, therefore negating space as a viable alternative. What he has failed to mention is the fact that mariculture has a variety of negative and destructive effects on the ocean ecosystem. Eutrophication - This is the direct result of the release of nitrogen and phosphorus into the water from such facilities, which in turn generate massive algal blooms. These communities of algae leech the water of oxygen and nutrients, resulting in a high mortality rate in effected areas. While this condition stays within 50 - 100 meters of the source, if we are to use it on the scale necessary to solve the imminent food crisis as Con asserts, this will become a massive problem. Chemical Pollution - Chemicals such as disinfectants and pesticides make it into both the water within the fishery, and into wild areas, resulting in hypoxia and mortality of local populations. Disease - It is widely acknowledged that disease is a major problem in these fisheries, as it is easily transmitted within and beyond the compound. These parasites and illnesses move outside the domestic areas via organic waste diposal, such as post - larvae shrimp. Escape - It has been observed that specimens that escape mariculture are often fit to out compete wild populations and variations, resulting in less bio diversity. Broodstock - Fisheries are often forced to bring in wild specimens to promote genetic diversity among live stock. This practice can and will be degrading to wild ecosystems if performed on the scale Con suggests. Degradation - Fisheries established with other ecosystems nearby are often negatively impacted by the artificially induced conditions of the fisheries. Sources: http://www.coastalwiki.org... While many solutions have been posed to the above problems, many of them are being RESEARCHED to be made viable and effective by the NOAA (National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration). In this sense, they are on the same level of probability as my solutions. However, Con does not address this, and instead focuses this criticism on my proposed solutions. [2] Viable Within 25 - 50 years. Con uses the assertion "They are outside of the solar system, and the farthest we as humans have gone is the moon. That gap is utterly huge." (They refers to comets, asteroids, and other bodies). My only question is this. Who said humans have to do it? A company called Planetary Resources (One of many looking to space as the solution I might add) has recently launched its first space craft from the ISS, and now is releasing the first prototypes of a cheap but effective automated robot that can be launched in swarms to mine asteroids that stray into our solar system. Given we already have basic, and I admit, untested solutions, it is not unreasonable to say we are looking at realistic mining of asteroids in the next couple decades. When interviewed, Chris Lewicki, the owner of Planetary Resources, said this. Quote, "We have every expectation that delivering water from asteroids and creating an in-space refueling economy is something that we'll see in the next 10 years " even in the first half of the 2020s." Even DSI (Deep Space Industries). has the same fundamental idea, and is working to make prototypes. Space X is among this list as well, as are many others. So as to your point about harvesting resources being unrealistic in my time frame, the private space industry has a lot to say against that. Sources: http://deepspaceindustries.com... http://www.space.com... I also want to expand this argument into food. I again, never argued that food is currently a problem, I simply said it will be with our current rate of progression in population and other factors. Con has completely ignored that brain power is not the only constraint working against food production, I might point out. And I have already shown that mariculture, Cons solution of choice, has its own milestones to overcome. Con also asserts that he has proven that mariculture can be perfected, yet he has only provided broad categories it needs to be refined IN, not HOW. In the upcoming argument, I will show how farming in space is a viable and beneficial practice. NASA has already been studying space grown crops for decades, and has come to some surprising conclusions. Plants do not need gravity to grow. This is thought to stem from the ability of plants to self orient themselves. They are also likely to grow larger, and faster, given they exist without natural environmental constraints like drought and temperature fluctuations. While this could be achieved on Earth, the problem is we lack the space and soil necessary. Space, however, offers bodies such as the moon, mars, and orbital greenhouses as solutions. We can already pretty easily get in and out of orbit, I think we can all agree. Even with large payloads. And with research being invested into reusable rockets and space elevators, access will only become easier. And given my argument about automated asteroid mining, and perhaps even the moon, these supplies can be mines and transported to these facilities relatively easily. Space X is already testing a self landing rocket, one that to the best of my knowledge is functional. So for all intents and purposes, orbital farming at the very least is not that far away, closer than the 25 - 50 year span needed to mine asteroids effectively. This is partially due to the fact that we are already doing it on small scale on board the ISS! And with the already proven clean and highly effective idea of orbital solar relays, they would be fairly easy and cheap to power. Just on a side note, given global warming and pollution, we should be vying for cleaner and more effective power sources. And I never said there was an energy crisis either! Sources: http://www.spacegarden.net... https://www.nasa.gov... http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [3] Extinction. No. No. No. Yes the solar system was volatile at the time of the last MAJOR impact. We have still had large ones to date. And we frequently have asteroids that stray into our orbital zone. They escape Jupiter and the Suns gravity due to velocity and position. So its not impossible, its just statistically unlikely. Also, NASA makes a habit out of tracking near by asteroids and comets. The fact that they show even mild concern makes my point valid. You also conceded to the fact that branching out lowers the liklihood of an extinction level event happening, no matter how unlikely in the first place. So in essence you have conceded the argument is valid. In conclusion I have proven: [1] Mariculture has numerous flaws that Con has no means to fix. [2] Space agriculture is perfectly viable and even beneficial in comparison, despite Con saying otherwise. [3] We are within the realm of beginning to harvest space in at least 25 years. [4] Given [3], the profitability of space compared to the ocean, which Con has conceded is much larger, is now a valid argument by Cons own standards. [5] Technology has become a valid argument. [6] Spreading out negates an extinction event, no matter how unlikely it is in the first place. On these grounds, I believe I have won this debate. Danke Schoen.