Humanity Should Begin Efforts to Colonize Mars

Introduction:Thanks to Freeman for debating on me this interesting and important issue for the future of our civilization.Technical Issues: There are lots of ways to skin a cat. Pro needs to explain who should do this and where the resources should come from. We must work within existing institutions and incentive structures. “Bill Gates should donate 95% of his money” is not a viable plan. Because this debate concerns humanity, would should prefer a utilitarian framework. Feeding hungry people is more important than making rich people richer. Rebuttals:C1: Practical InventionsPro argues that numerous useful inventions were designed in the pursuit of space-based objectives. This is a historical happenstance. Just because water purification systems were invented to aid in space exploration doesn't mean this is the only reason they could be invented. Perhaps someone would have invented them to purify water.Here are some incomplete lists of useful inventions that were not byproducts of the space program [1][2][3].Turns: The space program has produced many useless inventions that would not otherwise have been designed. A famous example is the Space Pen, which is a privately-developed device designed for writing in space [4]. While there are legends surrounding it, the truth is that NASA paid over $100/unit for mechanical pencils [5]. This objection is not limited to space pens. If expansion into space is not desirable or viable at this time then spacecraft are also wasteful. Each mission costs half a billion dollars [6]. The majority of what NASA creates can be considered superfluous. Surely the beneficial byproducts can be independently developed without devoting the majority of the effort involved to a pointless trip to the moon. The space program not only produces useless technology, it diverts effort away from the production of useful technology. Food and agricultural sciences that end hunger or new methods of generating electricity are better candidates for government funding. The free market is the best source of innovation because there is an incentive to out-compete competitors and meet consumer demand, but there is no free market Mars program for a simple reason: it's not worth it. C2: Economic BenefitsI. Resources Pro has no means of economic calculation to determine if his proposed ventures are profitable. He wants to to design and build equipment to go to Mars, dig up resources, and take them back to Earth to sell. The risk associated with that is very high due to physical danger and the possibility that the venture would fall flat for technological reasons. The principle of time preference also indicates that people prefer immediate to long term benefit. No reasonable person would invest in this. Silver, gold, and platinum do not benefit humanity. There is more gold than we need for technology already sitting in vaults. The majority of the world's population (humanity) would prefer one more bowl of rice to one more bar of gold in the world. This new supply will also cause the price of those metals to fall and no net benefit will result (since gold is valuable primarily for its rarity and not for practical uses). Deuterium is less valuable than gold [7]. If gold is not sufficient to drive a Mars expedition than neither is this isotope. There is not guarantee that it will magically solve the problem of energy, creating more risk. There are also better energy solutions that are immediately available. Also, about a quarter of the world's population lives without electricity [8]. These people don't care about the efficiency of power plants, they care about basic amenities that won't be found on Mars. II. Terraforming Terraforming Mars would require the addition of trillions of cubic meters of gas to Mar' atmosphere and the increase of the planet's temperature by about 65º C [9]. The most generous predictions suggest this would take 100 years, but other estimates suggest 1000 or 1,000,000 years [10]. No one has a rate of time preference that low, and if the longer estimates are correct then the plan could become irrelevant over the time-frame. Long plans are high risk. There is no immediate reason to begin a project that will take so long when there are pressing concerns on Earth. Mars lacks a magnetic field, so solar wind allows particles in Mars' upper atmosphere to achieve escape velocity [11]. The atmosphere would be constantly diminishing and unless there was a constant supply of new gas to Mars it would eventually be removed again anyway. This means that using local on Mars material to create the Mars atmosphere is not a long-term viable strategy. There are unresolvable problems with Mars that make it uninhabitable to humans even if terraformed. Low gravity causes serious health issues, such as muscular dystrophy, low blood pressure, and heart problems [12]. Many of these problems cannot be solved through exercise. The lack of a magnetic field also means insufficient shielding from radiation, which causes cancer and birth defects [13]. C3: ScienceWho cares about old rocks on Mars? Compared to other concerns, the weight of this argument is negligible. I concede that there's cool stuff on Mars. The huge cost of colonization, high risks, and low chance of long-term profitability and survival outweigh.Counter-Proposal:There are plenty of scientific secrets on Earth that we can discover without undertaking such a huge project. Less than half of the estimated number of beetle species have been discovered and finding them is not expensive [14].C4: Survival Survival on the species level does not matter. If the world is destroyed in nuclear war, who cares if there are a few thousand people alive on Mars? Besides the opinion of a few scientists, there is no evidence of impending doom. The effects of global warming have been small [15], much progress has been made in nuclear non-proliferation [16], and engineered doomsday diseases are science fiction at this point. These claims are nothing more than a way to get attention. We can protect humans from massive disasters and ensure the survival of our species at a much lower cost by building giant, underground vaults on Earth in which people can avoid a disaster [17]. These can be constructed on short notice at a low cost, and there is no risk that the effort will be wasted. Counter-Proposals:Agricultural ScienceAgricultural scientists develop new techniques to produce food and protect crops. This can involve bioengineering, advanced farming methods, development of new chemicals, and a host of other approaches [18]. Major universities such as Cornell have graduate programs and research faculty in AS [19]. Investing in this field of science instead of space technology will decrease hunger and global warming and increase the production of healthy food. There are countless projects in AS don't require hundred-year-long plans and multi-billion dollar start-up costs.Green EnergyThe world currently draws much of its energy from sources that will eventually be depleted. Oil and coal cannot be expected to sustain us for more than 100 more years (less time than it would take to colonize Mars) and will only become more expensive [20]. It also puts political power into the hands of terrorist states that control reserves, such as Saudi Arabia. It is more productive for scientists to work on solar, nuclear, wind, and hydrological energy than for them to work on plans for Mars colonization.Third World InfrastructureWe can spend money building roads, power lines, wells, and other infrastructure in poor countries. This greatly helps the inhabitants as well as the rest of the world. It will increase trade and economic development.Conclusion:Mars is not worth it right now considering the risks and other options. It will always be there and we can colonize it when we are ready.Sources:http://5z8.info...