Human expansion into space is a must

I would like to first note that my opponent's reference to expansion is referring to human colonization. This has been clarified through private messages. "1) In sure human survival." I'll assume my opponent meant ENSURE human survival. "Expanding to as many planets as possible will subsequently give humans a much greater chance of survival. At the current moment, we are on one planet, and if said planet is destroyed, humans will be extinct. One day, if roughly 5 billion years, our sun will no longer be stable enough for humans to remain on earth. That is the most definite way the earth will end, however huge asteroids, hostile aliens, and abnormal solar flares also have to potential to end our species. Another end to the earth, as we know it anyway, is the destruction of the moon. If we expand, we will also have multiple chances at how to take care of environments, and not destroying ourselves." I would first like to address that the destruction of the sun, asteroid collision, hostility of aliens, and the like are all potential threats even if we were to colonize beyond earth. Instead of seeking to escape the problem by abandoning earth, I believe it is far more plausible to use those funds to better the security and wellbeing of earth. Furthermore, my opponent's contention is only valid, if we can indeed survive on another planet, and if there are an infinite number of planets that are terraformable. If there aren't an infinite number of colonize-able, the initial purpose to colonize "1) In sure [ensure] human survival" is negated, for if we run out of colonize-able planets, we face extinction. "2) Discovery habitable worlds Once we terraform Mars, we will proceed to terraform an planets and moons in our solar system that can be terraformed, however once this is done, we will need to continue outward and expand to our galaxy. We will do this by first scouting for habitable planets and terraformable planets. As we expand into space, the chances of finding alien life will become greater and greater. If these aliens are friendly, then it will be one of the most important discoveries of human kind. If they are hostile, we will learn ahead of time, before they reach earth, so we will have a heads up of what to do and will also already be on multiple planets so if earth or another planet of ours is destroyed by them, it won't end humanity. I will address the possibility of us being alone in argument 4." The alien bit, I will leave alone, as it is based on whether or not the aliens would be intelligent or not (granted that one even exists). As for discovery of habitable worlds, my opponent has yet to explain why this is necessarily a must. Discovery is beneficial, but it we do not need to expand to discover. We can send droids as we are doing at this moment. Furthermore, my opponent's argument is only valid if there are other planets that are able to be terraformed other than mars. Simply said, "2) Discovery [of] habitable worlds" can be fulfilled without expanding. "3) Gaining new resources and places to live Once we are able to travel fast enough that transporting good back and forth is plausible, we will be able to trade resources across our civilization. If a planet has tons of uranium, for example, than the humans staying on said planet will export uranium to other planets. Having multiple planets will also rid overpopulation. Humans will begin to move to new worlds as they become more and more habitable." While finding new resources is beneficial, it is certainly not a must, as there is nonrenewable energy that can be used. Rather than investing in space expansion, we can use the money to fund research on nonrenewable energy. The overpopulation argument can be settled in other ways than expanding to space. We can simply regulate population. "4) If we are alone. If we are alone in the cosmos, it is about time we start making some head way into a universe that is unimaginable big. Some people say, "if we are alone, it is an awful waste of space." Well , its time we starting using some space." This contention has nothing to do with the resolution "Human Expansion into Space is a Must." There are lands in the U.S. that are barren and unclaimed. I ask my opponent to clarify this contention, if it indeed is relevant. My opponent's 4 contentions: survival, discovery, resources/population, and "if we are alone", do not necessitate the need to expand as a must. Now for some counter-arguments. C1: We should focus on earth. While my opponent claims that the sun will destroy the earth in 5 billion years. It does no good if something else destroys humanity before then. We should focus our resources on surviving for another 5 billion years, rather than what will happen after the year 5 billion. C2: Infinite Colonization-able Planets. My opponent's claim that we need to colonize to ensure survival does humanity no good, if humanity is doomed to extinction sooner or later. We can focus on escaping the next death of the sun in another solar system, but ultimately humanity is still doomed to extinction. The only difference is where the extinction occurs, on earth or another planet in a galaxy far, far away… C3: Evolution I would like to challenge my opponent's argument that expansion is needed to ensure human survival. We know through the theory of evolution that given enough time in a certain environment, being A can evolve into being B. So my theory is simple, given enough time that humans live on mars, they will gradually evolve into Martians, and likewise for other planets. Similar to how Homo sapiens are not Homo erectus, we can no longer identify the new evolved breed as human. Therefore, the resolution that expansion is needed to ensure humanity is negated. As what will survive will no longer be human. I look forward to my opponent's response.