[We] the Human race should leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologicaly)

I apologize for the unclear times, for Ob1 and Ob2 were simply meant to state the inherent situation and it's problems; Cnt's 1&2 were stating why the resolution is negated. I apologize for the misuse of the terminology, and I shall try to avoid it in the future. Before I continue, I would like to state that the uncontested definitions and framework shall be used for the round, for they have been untouched in the last Aff constructive. >>"We should not keep all the eggs in one basket, because if one disaster happens, an asteroid, etc. we're ALL dead. If we had left earth and settled other planets. We wouldn't be in the insanely dangerous place we call home." >>Yes, I agree with the Aff's statement, partially. As the Neg, I am burdened with proving that the species Homo sapiens sapiens should not leave Earth ASAP. By simply expanding and colonizing space, we are not leaving this planet, simply extending the reach of man to more possibilities. This resolution is not fully affirmed until the species Homo sapiens sapiens is no longer present on the planet Earth; therefore, we must remain on this planet, although we can expand slowly. >>" Although, on your point, the technology would have to be created in the next 4-5 billion years, as after that, the sun will die. And we will die with it." >> "Human beings finally realize the dream of colonizing Mars. The first colony is built in the year 2997" (What the Future Holds [1]). This gives a better idea of what is to come. I understand that predicting the future is either hit or miss (usually miss) it is the best evidence presented so far in the debate. By year 3000CE, Man has developed his first extraterrestrial colony on another planet. If it takes 1000yr to colonize Mars, it would take much longer (roughly 3,375,000yr; direct relation) to travel the 19.5 light years. Even if the numbers are irrelevant, it does mean that the Earth must be sustained for another 1000yr, at least. Therefore, we must correct current methods while preventing further problems. This ties into my argument of morality. >>" Although, on your point, the technology would have to be created in the next 4-5 billion years, as after that, the sun will die. And we will die with it." part II >> This does not mean that all other planets and suns do not have the same problem. By expanding to new solar systems, this problem is then extended to those systems as well, not solving it. It is also within the realm of probability that some of those systems will be even closer to "death." While we must vacate Earth in 4-5 bill yr, until then we can develop the "tech" and gather intelligence of possible locations. By moving everyone ASAP, it will simply place the species in unnecessary danger. >>" the human race is programmed like a computer with ONE single rule that cannot be broken, ensure the continuity of the species." >>This does not refute the morality argument. Simply because each species' self interest to ensure continuity, does not make it right relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. On the contrary, by allowing the suffering of innocent life forms for the actions of this species, it definitely wrong, relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. This makes leaving Earth still an immoral act upon all other known life forms. >>" the human race is programmed like a computer with ONE single rule that cannot be broken, ensure the continuity of the species." part II >> Destruction is not ensured by remaining on Earth, esp. if we colonize locations such as Mars. Despite our best efforts, it is not possible to avoid danger. It is omnipresent in the Universe, and can not be avoided. It doesn't matter where you stand in the rain; you are still going to get wet. Humans do not act out of "group" interest; instead, they act out of self interest. Because it would not benefit the individuals' chance of survival (if anything decrease from the dangers of travel in hostile environments), Game Theory [2] states that the individual should not follow that path of action. Given the harsh environments on this planet (Antarctica, deep ocean trenches, etc.) they are not colonized by individuals; only scientists at the best. Also, given that we adapted to this planet specifically, any other planet would be a misfit, and therefore harsh. Given we could travel, the individuals themselves would not want to undertake this burdens associated with it. Life has existed on this planet for 3.8billion years [3]; there is no reason (in probability) why it should suddenly end in the next 3,375,000yr and why we should leave ASAP. >>"If you threw a live hand grenade in that basket, all the eggs would be shattered. But what if you could put some of the eggs in another basket. The grenade blows up the empty basket, and the eggs survive. We must expand, it is not safe to be all in one small area where we can all be wiped out at once." >> If it were to blow up an empty basket, it could be a basket not yet colonized by man, leading to no harm; therefore, the only way to avoid losing the eggs would be to place one in each basket. However, it is then immoral to let some individuals die "for the greater good of the species." Because it is the object of the government to protect its citizens [4], and the death of entire colonies is not protection, then there is no more government as the primary function of the government has been nullified. No government would place an egg in each basket if it meant that it would not survive (governments want to preserve itself for it is made of individuals and individuals want to preserve themselves). The government would rather have Homo sapiens sapiens be wiped out than have it revert to the state of nature [5]. ==============Arguments=============== 1) We can colonize, but we will still be on Earth 2) We still have many years here on Earth, so we need to fix some things 3)a) The other locations will be just as dangerous b) We have enough time to scout out possible locations such that we will have a better chance 4) It is still immoral to leave Earth 5) Individuals will not want to move 6) The government will not want to spread out the human race in the name of survival ==============Sources================= [1] http://www.whatfutureholds.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... (wiki is not a reliable source, but simply for the understanding of Gtheory) [3] Gilbert, Walter (February 1986). "The RNA World" [4] http://plato.stanford.edu... [5] http://www.loc.gov...