My 100th Debate: Assuming that the Earth is overpopulated, Mars should be colonized until 2200

O1 Only 4 *unlabeled sources were in R2 due to a misunderstanding with debate parameters. These were reiterated later in the debate. With the exception of two picture sources (R4) in Comments (no other alternative once the round was posted and pictures failed to show) ALL other sources are in the body of the debate. The voters can decide on their validity, not take for granted Cons assertions about them. This is supposed to be a debate not a source war. Rebuttal of Defense 1. Things Humans Can Do Con believes just because we are able to accomplish something we should do it without regard to consequences. This is like knowingly jumping out of a plane without a parachute, not logical. Con believes that health issues as a result of deep space travel are inconsequential. People should have the liberty to do as they please. Cons argument is seriously flawed. The time it takes to recuperate from space travel is relevant. Many people arriving on Mars will have space travel related illnesses, and future cancer risks. Some will require hospitalization and rehabilitation in a gravitied non-radiation environment. Since artificial gravity in a stationary setting has yet to be developed and advanced shielding against cosmic rays will be insufficient. There is no appropriate environment on Mars where people can heal. Con has dropped the health related technical drawbacks as well as behavioral/psychiatric issues. Without addressing these issues we will have people with physical as well as psychological maladies that will continue to deteriorate and eventually die. To state that people should have the liberty to self impose illness and death is akin to the right to suicide. Suicidal people receive care for this illness. 2: Possible After over 45,000 characters to this point in the debate, Con with a wave of his hand during the 4th round decides that my arguments for colonizing inhospitable areas of Earth are invalid with the supposition with overpopulation there’ s no room. This presents an assumption that Earth’s current inhabitable areas have been already been developed. But, Con fails make this assertion anywhere in the debate. If he had, continuing the debate would have been pointless. This Hail Mary pass is a concession that he does not have any salient rebuttals to my assertions, a maneuver of desperation. Also, Con states that I have given no reason on why we should not colonize Mars. He surely has not been paying attention. 1. Health implications of deep space travel. 2. Exorbitant cost, shipment of all materials needed as well as technology to keep humans alive. 3. Only those meeting a high standard of health and education so as to contribute in the highly technical hash environment would limit those eligible, the morality/ethics of this limiting criteria and justification of cost to send only a selected few is a point drop by Con. 4. Cost effectiveness of colonizing Mars when Government stresses to provide essential services in an overpopulated world will take priority; point dropped by Con. 5. Sending even several thousands of people would not alleviate the overpopulation problem; point dropped by Con. 6. Contamination of a pristine environment and possible negative interactions between human and Martian microbes. 7. Unhealthful and equipment degrading biofilms in self contained environments. 8. Human reproduction in space is questionable. 9. Space Treaty of 1967, corporations can set up their own form of governance; point dropped by Con. 10. The Earth has all the materials and technology needed of build and uninhabited inhospitable areas. What’s the problem in shipping everything to Mars Con asks? The American colonist did it we can ship everything to Mars as well. We shouldn’t be colonizing the planet in the first place for the above 10 reasons it’s not only cost as you claim is my only contention, there are 9 other reasons. 3. Liberty Once you place yourself in a privately owned spacecraft to Mars your liberties will disappear. The Space Treaty of 1967 states that there can be no national appropriation of celestial bodies by means of use or occupation. But a loop hold does allow individuals or corporations to make land claims in space for economic use provided they are not controlled or protected by a government. These corporations would be able to pass laws and create a government on their lands http://tinyurl.com.... Being a company, profits are priority, not social issues, rights or liberties. Speech censorship and slave like laws could be enacted. Your liberty to choose for yourself is gone. 4. Not enough space (See 2. Possible above) I have not contested the debate parameters of the Earth being overpopulated. But nowhere in you arguments do you make the assertion that inhospitable/ uninhabited areas such as the oceans, desserts and Polar Regions where currently developed and inhabited. That’s to assume the all the oceans and sea floors are full up with cities. People are living on top of Mt Everest and the Polar regions are having a major melt down due to the of body heat emitted of all the people living there. The Sahara Dessert, all 3.6M sq miles of it, almost the size of China, has people shoulder to shoulder baking in 120 degree temperatures http://tinyurl.com.... Those are mighty big assumptions to make without actually stating them. Stating “we don't have enough space” does not imply any of the above. 5. Resources Con missed the point regarding deuterium and its use in Nuclear power plants. Because Nuclear power plants are being phased out, there will be no use for deuterium from Mars. In an overpopulated world fossil fuels will be depleted, common sense http://tinyurl.com... . Wind and Solar energy will be the alternative. Cost of buying an alternative energy car is not applicable argument in an overpopulated world scenario. Other than deuterium, Con states there are other useful things on Mars but, does not state what they are, so a mere assertion, “might have” doesn’t cut it. 6. Already working on it/ Dependency Yes, people are working toward going to Mars, but not for the purpose in solving an overpopulation problem. Under the premise that the world is overpopulated, governments will be fiscally strained in providing essential services. Do you think spending billions per person to colonize Mars is responsible use of money? It appears Con had dropped this point as well. People will not stop doing their jobs and stomp off like a 5 year olds because they can’t get to Mars, they still need to keep a roof over their heads. 7: Beneficial If Con doesn’t like the facts he considers them blah blah and calls a reliable technical journal spam. He also does not understand the premise of the Space Treaty of 1967 (see 3 Liberty above & 7 Beneficial R4) There will be no expanding countries or borders because countries can not lay claim to property on Mars. There will be corporate governing entities. His last argument that there will be no corporations on Mars makes no sense. Summary: In an overpopulated world scenario colonizing Mars will not be even a band aid solution to the problem. Con contends just because we can it should be done and individuals should have the liberty to make that decision. But use of resources for such a small number of people makes this type of endeavor impractical and unethical on balance to the needs of the rest of the world’s population. By developing self sustaining alternatives in inhospitable areas of Earth it would enable the spreading out of the population and benefit greater numbers of people. The selection criteria on who would go to Mars leaves the greater part of the world’s population ineligible; is this ethical? Space related illnesses are in need of consideration and contamination of a pristine environment poses risk to the planet and people. These factors need to be mitigated. The assumption that we throw a pill at ailments or we will be able to counter-act extremophiles is a deadly form of over confidence. Modern medicine is less than 75 years old. Living in a closed atmosphere on Mars also poses its own issues. MIT researches estimate with the current state of technology colonist would last no longer than 68 days. Biofilms that developed in closed environments also pose a danger to health and degrades machinery; the makings of a system wide disaster. No equipment tested for space has yet been done to resolve this issue. To colonize also means to reproduce, which no studies with animals that closely resemble human physiology has yet to be done. To have a child after returning from space is significantly different than having a child while in space; as well as radiation being causal to infertility. I like to thank fire wings for accepting me as a contender for his 100th debate; it is personal a mile stone of worth. It surely was the invigorating exchange that I hope it would be. As much as it would be gracious to award the win to fire wing as a gift for his 100th debate; this would be unethical. I ask voters to award the winner based on the quality of arguments alone. Although this a select winner voting set up, at least a brief RFD is encouraged as proof that the debate has been read in full.