Humanity Should Begin Efforts to Colonize Mars

Allow me to begin by thanking Grape for taking the time out to have this debate with me. Con has raised numerous arguments in response to my proposal, and he has also offered a different set of projects where the money could be spent. I'll be addressing those arguments. And I will also show why my proposal is actually better suited to my opponent's own goals than the one he has put forth. C1: Colonizing Mars has numerous practical benefits for modern life. Allow me to briefly explain where I propose we take the money from in order to colonize Mars. In the United States alone, approximately 600 billion was spent in 2004 on defense.[1] Even reducing defense spending by one fourth would produce more than enough money to begin efforts to colonize Mars. Colonizing Mars could also be an international effort of course. Now, let's take a look at Con's objections. 1. First, Con points out that many useful technologies have not been the product of the space program. He also indicates that space-based technologies could have been developed for different reasons. I simply fail to see the relevance of either of these two points. Moreover, the unique challenges presented by colonizing Mars make it likely that many highly valuable technologies will be developed. I'm going to touch on this point more later on in (C5). 2. Second, Con seems to imply that space-exploration is wasteful. Remember, I've already addressed this point. The space program helps create jobs, and the technology from the space program continues to drive new innovation and the economy.[2] 3. Third, Con seems to suggest that the space program is inefficient and produces useless technology. At best, Con's argument suggests that the space program should be made more efficient or privatized. C2: There are overwhelming economic reasons to colonize Mars. I've previously argued that colonizing mars has economic benefits. Con raises numerous objections to this point. 1. First, he claims that I have no way of determining if colonizing Mars is profitable. Well, I have given the expert testimony of the aerospace engineer Robert Zubrin, who is the former Chairman of the National Space Society.[3] Con also says that my proposal can be dangerous. Though this is partially true, many worthwhile ventures involve some degree of risk. That isn't a reason to abandon them. 2. Second, Con seems to suggest that the natural resources of Mars are of no benefit to humanity. I submit that this objection is simply misguided. Yes, it's true that gold has no inherent value, but trading it and selling it helps stimulate and build the economy, so that more people can buy things like rice. 3. Third, Con suggests that deuterium isn't very valuable. Well, deuterium would help drive the economy of Mars as an energy source. And it's certainly a valuable trade item. These materials, of course, are only a tiny fraction of what Mars has to offer. Colonizing Mars is like a business venture. There might be initial start up costs, but it will eventually pay for itself and become profitable. Con also raises three separate objections with respect to terraforming Mars. 1. First, Con simply attacks a straw man in suggesting that I argued that we immediately terraform Mars. Remember, I said that doing this wasn't necessary to set up colonies. It merely highlights the planet's possibilities for human life. Whether we terraform later will depend on other factors. 2. Second, con claims that Mars' atmosphere would constantly diminish after it was initially set up. This is simply not the case. Venus doesn't have a magnetic field, but it has a thick atmosphere.[4] 3. Third, humans would obviously need to initially wear suits on Mars, so Con's point about solar radiation is irrelevant. And finally, Con has not presented evidence that the gravity level on Mars is so low that it would be harmful to humans. C3: Mars has scientific secrets that are valuable and interesting. I think that Con's objection to the scientific benefits of exploring Mars are deficient in numerous ways. For starters, there aren't just rocks there. (See my C3 for round 1.) And though collecting all the species of beetles on Earth might be fun, it would get old after a while. I ask the audience: If there was extinct life on Mars, wouldn't you want to know? Isn't that information intriguing to you? Some of the geological features of Mars are like nothing the Earth has to offer. Exploring those features is definitely a worthwhile goal for those interested in discovery, as many people are. C4: Colonizing Mars helps ensure the survival of the human species. Con points out that there is no evidence of an immediate catastrophe on Earth. There is also no immediate evidence that my opponent will get into a car crash tomorrow. That doesn't mean it would be rational for him not to wear a seatbelt the next time he gets into a car. Technology grows at an exponential rate,[5] and we simply don't know what sorts of deadly technologies will be available even 100 years from now. This is exactly what Stephen Hawking was talking about. Con also says that we can protect against the extinction of the human species at a lower cost than colonizing Mars. And I would agree. Colonizing Mars isn't mainly about ensuring the immediate survival of the species, though it is the ultimate long term strategy. The benefits of (C4) are merely supplemental to the benefits of (C1, C2 and C3), which combined make my plan viable and worthwhile. C5: Grape's counter proposals are deficient in numerous ways. As a counterproposal to building a colony on Mars, Con suggests three different ways we could spend the money. I see at least a couple of different problems with this objection. It is simply not the case that my opponent's proposals are so expensive that they would preclude humanity from being able to go to Mars. Moreover, I think that my proposal actually better accomplishes my opponent's own goals than his does. 1. First, a huge part of colonizing Mars would be developing new technologies for agriculture. The colonies would obviously need food in order to survive. So we can see right off the bat that my proposal at least partially subsumes Grape's plan. In fact, the challenges associated with developing agriculture on Mars would present more opportunities for innovation than developing agriculture on Earth. 2. Secondly, the exact same thing is true of green energy. Colonizing Mars would force scientists to come up with new energy solutions. Furthering research into solar, nuclear, wind, and hydrological energy would be part and parcel with colonizing Mars. Of course, this also applies to infrastructure technology as well, since a large part of colonizing Mars will include building living structures for humans to inhabit. And all of this would benefit the economy and increase trade. Con simply doesn't have an advantage in this area. On top of this, developing this technology in the context of a space-mission to colonize Mars will likely be more productive than developing the technology exclusively for Earth. Neil deGrasse Tyson, a distinguished astrophysicist, has explained how scientific innovation and insight is spurred by tackling new problems and venturing into new areas where science hasn't gone before.[6] The same thing is true with space technology. By grappling with the technological challenges for developing energy solutions, agriculture and infrastructure for Mars, scientists will be in a better position to make scientific discoveries that will be beneficial to Earth. | Conclusion | As we've seen, colonizing Mars has many benefits for humanity from a practical, economic and scientific perspective. Even the benefits the Con supposes for his own proposal are largely subsumed by my proposal. It is for these reasons that I maintain that humanity should begin efforts to colonize Mars. Sources: http://tinyurl.com...