Human expansion into space is a must

I thank Con for his rebuttal. "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. " It is not plausible for us to try and defend against hostile aliens, who knows of the technology they have. We must simple have our eggs in more than one basket, the more the better. I also do not understand the conclusion that there needs to be an infinite number of colonisable planets. We will escape extinction as long as we are able to stay alive, not run out of new planets to go to. I will also point out that if we do colonize every habitable planet, planets will still continue being destroyed and new ones will continue to form, meaning new planets to colonize. I also point out that we still will have to leave the earth one day or we will be killed by the sun. "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. " It is necessary to discover new habitable worlds because we need to discover them before we can go to them. I think this point is extremely simple. The alien bit is indeed up to whether you believe in aliens, however I mentioned the possibility that they don't in argument 4. "While finding new resources is beneficial, it is certainly not a must, as there is non renewable energy that can be used. Rather than investing in space expansion, we can use the money to fund research on non renewable energy. The overpopulation argument can be settled in other ways than expanding to space. We can simply regulate population. " Non renewable resources are great, and I agree we could use the money for finding ways to power the world with them. However, Con's position on regulating population is not plausible. With free countries, such as America, where we both live, it is illegal for the government to enact such a restriction. In America, for example, it would be unconstitutional for the government to limit the amount of kids people can have. Eventually, when overpopulation is a huge issue, we will probably begin to expand into space, maybe with space stations at first, but sooner or later we will take more planets. "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. " These lands are barren and that is the reason no one lives there. Once America suffers from overpopulation, these areas will no longer be unclaimed and the poorer peoples will inhabit this area. Now on to Con's counter argument. "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. " I 100% agree with Con on this, which is why we should have our eggs in more than one basket. "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…" My opponent's claim that humanity is doomed to extinction is only true 100% if the universe will one day come to an end. Planets will continue to end and form in the universe, as I've already pointed out, thus we won't run out of places to colonize. I would also like to point out that the fact that there isn't an infinite number of planets is not a reason to sit around on earth waiting for doomsday. "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. " This point is extremely awesome and I would like to give credit where credit is due. However, I don't think our DNA will change simply because the land under our feet is different. It will take thousands if not millions of years for there to be a noticeable difference from humans on a planet with low gravity than on a planet with high gravity and even with this difference, we will all still be apart of the human species. Its not like humans in the future are going to look exactly like us either, so I don't see this point as valid.