This House believes that we should substantially subsidize the extraplanetary industry

I hope to explain to you why subsidies to extraplanetary development are should be strongly opposed. I will show this through revealing the underpinning of his arguments: dogged appeal to Capitalist Nationalism. It is clear in my opponent’s contentions that support of the resolution is support for Capitalism. His second argument is about making markets competitive, his third to promote local industry, and his fourth to promote strategic trade theory. Moreover, his argument is clearly jingoistic, going as far as to promote local business “at the expense of foreign competition” and readily admits that his Strategic Trade “will reduce national economic welfare”! The proposition clearly wishes to lead us to state supported Capitalism. It goes without saying: if my opponent cannot justify his ideology, then all his arguments fail, as this ideology pervades every argument. My argument by contrast is one against this dogma, and against the marginalisation, destitution and exploitation of the common people, instead focusing on equity, the only aspect of importance. My argument rejects this flawed underpinning for a better one, based in equity and welfare, not cold-hearted mechanical efficiency. The exploration and development of space is merely a smoke screen, a way to blind us from the reality: an expansion and return to imperialism, a short term solution to economic crisis and avoiding the societal problems here on earth. The humanisation of the cosmos is clearly a new and exotic development, but the underlying motive is evidently dangerous. Rosa Luxemburg in the 20th century explained there needs to be this frontier outside of Capitalist nationalism for two reasons. First, the outside of the “civilised” world is something scaremongerers use to convince us to rally behind otherwise horrible ideas in a scramble for exploitative profit, or to remain in government. Just look at the Falkland War, explicitly by the Argentinian government to create violent nationalism, or the Bush Wars in a scramble for oil and profit. These frontiers lead to fighting and disaster. Secondly, these frontiers are, as Rosa Luxemburg states, for the search of cheap capital and labour. Now, science-fiction aside, expansion to the cosmos offers no benefit in labour power, but expansion into the cosmos does offer prospects for exploiting new materials such as those in asteroids, moons, and other planets. Again, when there is a competition of interests in space, there shall be colonisation and rushes for extracting and exploiting all the resources of a celestial body as quickly as possible, leading to the exploitation of workers similar to the Congo in the 1890, and the stealing of resources, ruining the lives of any colonists living there. Thus, the support of the extraplanetary industry develops the need for the frontier which leads to an exploitation of citizens and the creation of war. Capitalism in space, lacks borders, lacks restraint, will lead to cosmic destruction, as it has on our planet. However, at least on Earth we can restrain the horror of laissez-faire Capitalism through the power of law and democracy. Yet in the empty frontier of space, law will be non-existent, and exploitation is inevitable. We simply need to look at our history of colonial exploitation of resources to see that, without restraint, we shall devour and destroy ourselves. In the words of Joseph Conrad, who saw materialistic fanaticism of the capitalist colonisers’ first-hand: “They grabbed what they could get for the sake of what was to be got. It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind- as it is very proper for whose who tackle darkness.”[1] The destruction of the victims and the land is horrible enough, but we destroy ourselves from taking part in such shameful activities. Not only does affirming the resolution lead to mass victimisation of the workforce, but it also leads to the moral destruction of the businessman. The proposition cannot hide behind good intentions: the fact of the matter is that profit is the driving force of extraplanetary development, and in the unrestrained frontier of space, exploitation is inevitable. What we affirm is not the abandoning of space, but instead the demand of not half-hearted subsidies, but nationalisation instead. My opponent's first argument justifies this: government control is key. We must distance ourselves from unjust resource exploitation and promoting instead a collective effort to better ourselves is the true step forward. Corporate interest is anathema to the interest of the people, and it is the latter which needs to be focused on and promoted. If we remain focused on corporate interest, what will happen when two corporations make claim to areas as vast as Mars, or Venus, or even an asteroid? Trillions of pounds worth of raw material could be there at the very least. War is inevitable – between corporations as well as countries. Countries like the USA with use space to reassert a dying global hegemonic imperialism to this new frontier. Harry Magdoff commented in The Age of Imperialism “it is the professed goal” of the US and its corporations “to control as large a share of the world market as they do of the US market”[2], and this hunger persists today. It is impossible to exaggerate how dangerous this dual expansionism is to the world at large. Meszaros observed in 2001 that the Anglo-American union threatens humanity with the “extreme violent rule of the whole world by one hegemonic imperialist country on a permanent basis…an absurd and unsustainable world order”[3]. Subsidies will only cause horror. Moreover, there are massive risks to our local populations if we send space exploration missions. It is not widely appreciated, for example, that if something had gone wrong while the 1997 Cassini Mission was still circling the earth, roughly forty million deaths could have occurred.[4] No plans were in place for such an eventuality. Yet, as early as 1964, a plutonium-powered generator, similar to the Cassini, fell to earth, having failed to achieve orbit. Dr. John Gofman, professor of medical physics at the University of California, Berkeley, then argued that there was a direct link between that crash and an increase of lung cancer on Earth[5]. Both President Obama and the Russian authorities are now arguing for generating electricity with plutonium in space, and building nuclear-propelled rockets for missions to Mars.[6] With an increase in the extraplanetary industry, we’ll certainly see catastrophes like this occur. So, to conclude, there are four points I am making. Firstly, the extraplanetary industry will result in war between corporations and countries over the rights of land in space. Second, the extraplanetary industry, away from prying eyes will lead to all involved losing their sense of moral decency and care for one another, reducing us to animals and lawlessness will ensue. Thirdly, there will be mass exploitation of workers and colonists outside of their country and planet. And finally, there will be an increase in catastrophes and death on the planet as a result of the growth of the industry and the loss of millions of people’s lives. But in general, I am making the point that extraplanetary development is a distraction from the real world problems. The subsidies can be better spent, improving our police or fire services, for example, which are direly in need. However, the devastating union of state-sponsored Capitalism will lead to jingoistic imperialism, as the state meddles in Capitalism, Capitalism meddles with the state, and everyone loses as a result. [1] Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad [2] Age of Imperialism, Harry Magdoff [3] Socialism or Barbarism, Istvan Meszaros [4] The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet, Karl Grossman [5] http://prop1.org... [6] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...