Humanity Should Begin Efforts to Colonize Mars

I hope that you all have enjoyed this debate as much as I have. Of course, I won't be able to defend myself against any new arguments or evidence that Con may bring up in the last round. So I would ask that any such arguments be disregarded. As far as I can tell, all of the objections that Con has managed to bring up so far have been soundly refuted. Having said that, allow me to briefly summarize my case once more. C1: Colonizing Mars has numerous practical benefits for modern life. Con has made wild speculation about what would happen if the United States decreased its defense budget to help colonize Mars. I think it should be clear that he has not managed to carry any of his contentions. Indeed, the United States heavy emphasis on defense spending diverts money away from technology based industries that help drive the economy and create jobs. You'll remember at the outset of this debate I listed numerous scientific innovations that have come from the space program. As I've indicated previously, cancer detection and treatment systems, pacemakers, artificial hearts, non-intrusive ultrasound technology, breast biopsy systems, enriched baby food, firefighter air breathing systems, infrared cameras, cordless appliances, household smoke detection systems which are universally credited for saving numerous lives, energy efficient cars and aircraft, cutting-edge sports equipment, water purification systems, and air purification systems were all technologies originally developed to be used for the space program. Con's main objection has been that this technology could have been developed in a different context. However, this objection overlooks the fact that the space programs unique focus on aerospace practically guarantees that lots of useful technology will be developed. More than many other fields of technology, the unique challenges associated with aerospace technology guarantees that lots of scientific innovation will occur. Moreover, Con's objection has completely overlooked the value of the core technology that has come from the space program. The benefits I've listed were merely byproducts of that core technology. Furthermore, the technology and innovation that accompanies expansion into space drives the economy and creates jobs. Con has yet to respond to this apart from the loose insinuation that these jobs are comparable to 'counting grains of sand. ' I submit that Con is demonstrably wrong on this point. Likewise, Con is incorrect in suggesting that colonizing Mars isn't worthwhile because no private firms have taken steps to colonize Mars. This presupposes that these investors are virtually omniscient and completely rational. Clearly, this isn't the case. These investors "should" put money into colonizing Mars because I have given them rational reasons to do so - reasons that Con has not managed to refute. C2: There are overwhelming economic reasons to colonize Mars. As I've argued previously, "the people best able to make economic calculations about the value of colonizing Mars are the people like Robert Zubrin and the National Space Society. Remember, to know the benefits of a scientific mission (economic or otherwise), you have to first know the science. " Also, the fact that some activity may carry some risk is not an argument against doing that activity. As I've said, driving a car carries some risk. Con has also continuously insinuated that short term gain is better than long term gain. As such, Con has argued that Mars shouldn't be colonized because it is a long term investment. This is refuted both by common sense and the economics that govern business ventures. Many businesses take a long time to become profitable; that doesn't mean that they aren't worthwhile investments. It would be like saying that people shouldn't go to college because this is a long term investment that won't become immediately profitable. Mars' abundant natural resources clearly make it valuable. Likewise, all of the alleged difficulties that Con has put against my plan have not been shown to be correct. Terraforming Mars is not necessary to set up colonies there. And the problems Con has claimed come with terraforming Mars haven't been substantiated. The same thing is true of the difficulties that Con has claimed come with living on Mars in general. Apart from mere assertion, we've not seen any good evidence to think that these criticisms are valid. If Stephen Hawking, Robert Zubrin and the top scientists over at NASA have overlooked some fatal flaw in their position, stronger arguments are needed to demonstrate that. C3: Mars has scientific secrets that are valuable and interesting. Apart from suggesting that we spend all of our time collecting beetles, I don't think that Con has managed to come up with a viable refutation of my argument. Mars' scientific secrets are valuable from a historical perspective because of the unique makeup of the planet. They would also provide us with insights about the nature of life elsewhere in the universe. And all of this would go a long way to answering some of the largest and most profound questions humans have ever asked. C4: Colonizing Mars helps ensure the survival of the human species. Con has not managed to refute my argument that it is rational to plan for a catastrophe given the rapid development of technology and the history of human conflict. Please extend that argument and my other arguments that have gone unrefuted from (C1 - C4). With respect to my fourth argument, Con is partially correct in saying that there are cheaper ways to secure the human species from extinction. However, this objection overlooks the fact that (C4) is only one of the reasons for colonizing Mars. It merely adds weight to my overall case. As such, it is irrelevant whether or not there are other possible ways to secure the survival of the human species. C5: Grape's counter-proposals are deficient in numerous ways. You'll remember that I raised two basic objections to Con's previous argument. First, Con's plan is not so expensive that it would preclude us from doing my plan. If my plan is good enough on its own merits, his argument is simply irrelevant. We've yet to see a response to this. Second, my proposal actually subsumes much of Grape's proposal. Indeed, Con's own arguments are more beneficial to me than they are to him. Investing in agricultural and energy technology would be a large part of colonizing Mars. As I've argued previously, "The challenges associated with growing food on Mars are far greater than the challenges associated with growing food on Earth. The scientific knowledge that comes from solving those challenges, therefore, would be greater. " This also applies to energy technology. Moreover, Con has also not managed to explain who is going to pay for these buildings and roads that he wants to set up in the Third World. Nor has he managed to explain how this objection even properly negates my plan to begin with. So, neither of my objections have been properly refuted. We can clearly allocate resources to fulfill Con's plan an my plan at the same time. And Con's plan is largely subsumed by my plan to begin with. | Conclusion | In conclusion, I think we've seen at least five good reasons to colonize Mars. By contrast, all of the objections that Con has put forward have come up short. The alleged difficulties associated with colonizing Mars have not been shown to be accurate. Nor has it been demonstrated that Colonizing Mars is a waste of money. Indeed, all of the evidence thus far has shown that colonizing Mars would likely have a positive effect on the economy. Given all of these arguments, I think that we have good grounds to affirm that humanity should begin efforts to colonize Mars. Sources: . http://tinyurl.com...