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

Thank you, Con for a quick and eloquent response. Con has assumed the stance that the ocean is a more viable proposition for all the points I have addressed [1]. It also seems con has entirely misunderstood the purpose of the contextualization argument. So prepare to have your debunking hat slapped off your head. Con makes the assertion that, quote, "It seems that most of Pro's arguments are based upon the idea that we are in a resource crisis, that the earth has too many people! This is simply not true..." My intent was not to assert that we are currently in a resource crisis, but one is inevitable if we continue our current rate of consumption. Is it not logical to assume that with growing population (estimated to reach 9 Billion by 2050) our resource consumption will grow with it? While our current problem may be the fact that we are not efficient with our use of materials, eventually that will not be the case. As humanity grows, so will our need for basic resources, and this consumption rate will become a necessity. My point is, that while we are not currently in a resource crisis, we are not sustainable [2]. Definition: Sustainable - (Adj) Able to be maintained at a certain rate or level. So by the objective use of the word, we cannot maintain our current habits. Con also raises the notion of our ability to provide for 10 billion people in food and water at our current production rate. While this is true, the fact stands the we are destined to reach the maker of 10 billion in population before the turn of the century according to multiple studies. So when Con sates "The point of this argument is to show that just because we are not sustainable in our current use of materials doesn't mean we use too much because there are too many people, but simply because we just use too much!" My reply is simply that while this is the case as of now, it will not be in less than 90 years. Even with attempts to control this growth, with the inertia that this trend has, these efforts will do little to nothing. The problem of consumption is likely to only get worse, as again, we destroy topsoil 40 times faster than it is produced, and topsoil is essential to farming. In turn, our food production is doomed to fall, draining from the production that will be rendered obsolete by the increasing population before the 22nd century. Sources: http://news.nationalgeographic.com... https://www.wrforum.org... This is where the argument arises, which is a better solution, space, or the ocean? I argue space, and con argues the ocean, which clearly is lacking in a couple ways the space is quite proficient in. Unfortunately, con has used the majority of round one to make and argument for a point I do not dispute: We are not in a resource crisis as of now [3]. Like stated before, what I do dispute is the proposed solution. So just to repeat, I did not state nor assert we are currently in a resource crisis, and made it quite clear about such. My point is that we are nearing one, and we are at a tipping point. I really encourage the viewers to look at contextualization from Round 1 with a critical eye, and you will see that I do not believe what Pro insists I am advocating for. Back to more relevant discourse, I begin my rebuttals. While Con did linger on an relevant but undisputed idea for much of the last round, he did offer counterpoints to all of my arguments from round, which are the following. 1 - Resources 2 - Something to Rally Behind 3 - Net Worth (Economics) 4 - Extinction Event 5 - Technology First off, we have the prospect of resources. Con begins by simply asserting "Yes there are resources out in space, but why not use what we have on earth? Technology is vastly farther away from efficiently mining the cosmos than using the resources we have under our own feet!" So we begin. Lets answer this question first. How do we mine an asteroid? We can already get to and from one fairly easily on a small scale, as highlighted by the Rosetta mission in 2014, which landed a probe onto the comet 67P. Following in her footsteps, we have probes such as New Horizons and AIDA. So while con will inevitably point out that this is far away from the realm of asteroid mining, this is exactly why we need to focus research here, so this becomes a reality, and we can harness the vast and undisputed potential of the frontier space provides. Con only advocates that we focus on what we have here, since it can sustain humanity for the "foreseeable future (millions of years.)" which was disproved in the segment above, responding to Con and his allegations regarding resources here on earth. Quite frankly, we have less than 60 years until we struggle to produce enough food for the population, and this is only one resource for instance. As for the resource potential of space vs the ocean, here we go. The ocean contains 1.35 billion cubic meters of mostly salt water (not drinkable), which I will touch upon later. In comparison, one comet is made up of a majority water ice, the composition of which is much easier to treat than our own oceans water. Again, the problem is getting there. And there are billions of them out there, in the ort cloud and kuiper belt, many of which routinely stray into the orbital paths of planets. And this does not account for the Moon or Mars. NASA is already working on the Orion Project, a manned vehicle that is designed to account for longer journeys in space to places such as the above locations. This fails to account for private ventures from companies such as Elon Musk's Space X, DSI, and Boeing, who are actively pioneering new forms of technology. Clearly these companies do not see it as "economically and financially insecure". So clearly, space has vast potential for prosperity in comparison to the ocean, based on material from Round 1 and this one. The problem here, and the topic of the debate, is focusing resources to make it a reality. While exploiting resources on terrestrial locations is easier, it offers less output than that above us. As for you arguments pertaining to economics, this is exactly why the US needs to get there first. It is inevitable that we begin to harness these resources as a species, so to make sure that we are not at the mercy of another monopoly from foreign powers. From there, we can equally distribute this power accordingly in order to avoid catastrophe. Also, at that point, the structure of the world economy would need to completely change in a radical sense to compensate for the expansion into the private sector. Sources: http://www.esa.int... http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu... https://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.nasa.gov... Moving on to your counter for an extinction event. No, I don't. All I need is a brain and some logic to do the math. If I own two houses, and spread my possessions evenly between them, the chance of everything being burnt up in a massive fireball drops significantly no matter how unlikely it is for my houses to catch fire. So for this intent and purpose, my possessions are humanity, and my houses are planets. This is a pretty candid matter, and I think the audience would agree. And there are observable impacts that would have destroyed life here as we know it. All I need to cite is the Comet Shoemaker and its impact on Jupiter. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... What I do agree with you about is this: It is very unlikely for us to go extinct, and it is not a major motivation to move into space [4]. AS to your remaining arguments, they are pretty easy to counter. Technology - Again, I never insinuated that all NASA research comes directly from space exploration, although the modern computer and other technology was pioneered on the Mercury and Apollo programs, which were improved as a result. So this is not a nonsensical and illogical argument to maintain that the investment into research for space exploration yields new technologies. History counters you there. Health and Research - Yes, the ocean can yield scientific insights, but not nearly as many as space. While we have explored only 5% of the ocean, we have barely scratched the surface in space, which has contributed valuable insights into our own creation here on Earth, and the one and most important question: Are we alone? Strictly speaking, there is a lot more scientific worth in space than our own oceans. Danke Schoen