Exploring space instead of feeding africans or poor people in general is more preferable!

Now let"s start with the rebuttals as I have not something else to add: "Taking care of people living in the third world is more important explore the universe and organise space travels because you're essentially letting people die due to issues we helped create through exploitation of these countries in the past. " Okayyy, and what makes you believe that even if we stop space travels, the exploitation of these countries will end, too? If we stop space exploration the only thing that will change about the exploitation of these countries is the usage of the natural resources we get. We won"t use them to send people and robots in the universe but we"ll use them to do other things. The exploitation of these countries will not stop if we quit space travelling. "It"s not even financially viable to mine some resources on earth or the moon, let alone in other planets. " Oh! This is strange to hear as we have already planned to do so: "At Planetary Resources, our mission is to prospect and mine asteroids to address one of the paramount problems faced on Earth and beyond: resource scarcity. With our first launch scheduled for next year, our work towards asteroid mining is in-progress. " (. http://www.planetaryresources.com...) You can watch this video in order to understand better: . https://www.youtube.com... In order to plan a launched we must be sure that this is financially viable. "If there is life on other plants it is likely that we would be able to discover it due to current technology" Exactly, and by technology we mean space travelling. How can you be so sure that there is no life on other planets? ?Do you know how we reached the conclusion that there is no life on the moon and most likely not on the mars, too? BY SENDING MANYY SPACE CRAFTS THERE AND COLLECTING EVIDENCE! ! This is how. This is the technology needed. This process took a lot of years and we needed to send many many space crafts there. And we"re not sure about mars yet because we have not sent a manned space craft, yet. This means that we have more work to do. "Besides population will fall 2050, far before a colony could be built. By then they"ll be far less of an issue with overpopulation well before colonises could ever be set up" Now about the problem of overpopulation, I didn"t say that the purpose of the colonization would be to solve this problem. I just said that except for its advantages, it would help a lot. The world population may be decreased but the problem will still exist. Specifically, The current world population of 7.2 billion is projected to increase by1 billion over the next 12 years and reach 9.6 billion by 2050, according to a United Nations report which points out that growth will be mainly in developing countries, with more than half in Africa. (. https://www.un.org...) So, this means that the population growth might be slower than before but it actually stills growing. A colonization could not, of course,solve this problem but it could play a major role in its confrontation. But I emphasize that this is not the main purpose of colonizing other planets. "We currently can"t even afford a base on the moon,let alone a colony[. . ]This is unrealistic and It would be far easier, cheaper and safer to create villages on the bottom of the ocean than on the moon. " Reallyyy? Haven"t you heard about NASA"s plans to colonize mars? More than 200,000 men and women from around the world responded to the first call for astronauts (. http://www.mars-one.com... )Haven"t you heard that Russia is planning to colonize the moon? The first stage is planned to start in 2016 and last until 2025, but the project is not submitted to the government yet. ( . http://rt.com...)If it was "currently unaffordable" to colonize another planet would they plan to make it? Colonizing other planets and colonizing the ocean are two different things that offer different things, too. You cannot say that we don"t have to colonize other planets because it is easier for us to colonize the ocean. It"s not the same thing. So, it is not right to compare those two things let alone to argue that the one could replace the other. The one has to do only with the confrontation of overpopulation while the other offer us many more benefits. "History has shown that when societies gain more money, education levels increase leading to more technological advances. Giving Africans aid would actually advance technology by giving more students the chance to become educated. " The amount of money that will arrive in these countries will only be enough for building schools and providing basic education to children. But this is not enough! : To start with, the education provided to children will not be enough to invent something new that we need for two simple reasons: 1)The basic education includes something a little bit better than learning how to write, read and solve some mathematical problems (just think the knowledge we gain until we graduate from junior high-school but there it won"t have the same effects because of reasons that we can all imagine). So, it is almost impossible for someone to invent something that here, in the "first world" as you said in the comments, we have been trying to invent with much more knowledge and technology available for many years and haven"t manage to do so yet. Since they don"t have even the basic, if they would manage to make an invention, it would probably be something that we already have. 2)In order to have technological advancements, we don"t need just some knowledge. Other things are also needed. For example, if there is war in a country, everyone would be focused on either how to survive or how to kill his/her enemies. Another example: If there is a dictator who makes everyone work hard 20 hours a day for a slice of bread then no one would think about new inventions. So, in order for any changes to come, there has to be favorable conditions, too. And, unfortunately, in these countries there are not. This why there are these problems because as I explained in round 2, these countries are not rules by a good governor or government. 3)Even if there will be some new inventions by the education provided to poor people,these inventions cannot be compared to the inventions and technological advancements we have gained thanks to space travelling. So, it would not be wise to argue that we can stop space exploration because we can also have some new inventions by educating poor people. "Not sure how this links to space exploration if it"s to protect the planet. " I"m sorry but I didn"t get it. This invention help us detect asteroids and find ways to divert them from a collision course. So, it contributes to our safety. "Granted, space research has benifited our lives today due to inventions created, but in the same way as have wars which have also lead to greater technological and medical advances which we enjoy on a day to day basis. [. . ]This doesn"t mean we should be investing in wars. " This opinion is wrong. It doesn"t mean that everything that offer us some new inventions is good and we must invest in it. In order to decide whether you should invest in something you have to take into consideration all the advantages and disadvantages and see which are more important. For example, there are people who believe that wars" advantages outweigh their disadvantages and their consequences are overall beneficial to our society. : Please take a look at these articles: . http://www.worldissues360.com... . http://www.airliners.net... In this case, I think that space exploration"s advantages(that include these important inventions) outweigh the advantages of feeding poor people and its result is more advantageous to our society than the result of giving poor people food, while you believe the opposite. "money would be far better spent here to solve these problems and the problems surrounding poverty. " In round 2 I tried to explain as better as I could that poverty is something that can"t be solved unless there is a good governor or government. But unfortunately, you did not get my point. Poverty is not a problem to be solved just be giving some people some food. "This shows a very inhuman lack of empathy if you think that making the lives of people in the first world better is more important that preventing needless deaths in LEDCs. " Just preventing some deaths does not make any difference. ! This is what I wanted you to realize in round 2! But as I said, I might haven"t explained it so well. New people will be born every day and they will suffer from famine ,too. It is impossible to give all these people food to be enough for their whole life. If you want to make something to help these countries, you can try to make them have a good government or governor. This way we could make space travels and the conditions of living in these countries will become better, too. If you want to face any problem you have to confront its CAUSE and not its EFFECTS. Now, I want to make something clear. I can"t offer you solutions on HOW to do that. I just inform you that this is the only way to make a change that really counts. "History shown us many thing that are unfair, there always being poor people doesn"t justify there being countries where all most everyone is rich and countries where almost everyone is incredibly poor by comparison" That"s what I"m talking about. This depends on their ruler and the way he/she governs the country. Thank you. PS: Sorry for the capital letters. Just wanted to emphasize ^_^