[We] the Human race should leave the Earth as soon it becomes possible (fiscally and technologicaly)

THE VIDEOS BELOW REPRESENT THE END OF THE WORLD AND WHERE WE COULD BE DURING THE END OF THE WORLD (hypothetically) CHOOSE WHICH VIDEO YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE IN. For the record: I do not agree to your arguments and rebuttals just because I didn't post. Also I do not contest your definitions because they are legitimate. \\\By simply expanding and colonizing space, we are not leaving this planet, simply extending the reach of man to more possibilities. This resolution is not fully affirmed until the species Homo sapiens sapiens is no longer present on the planet Earth; therefore, we must remain on this planet, although we can expand slowly./// Earth is more dangerous than you think. We should relocate to a planet with a stable star and a stable planetary system. Asteroids miss earth by tiny amounts all the time (in fact I remember a few months ago an asteroid was on a crash course towards Earth and we narrowly dodged it) \\\Human beings finally realize the dream of colonizing Mars. The first colony is built in the year 2997" (What the Future Holds [1]). This gives a better idea of what is to come. I understand that predicting the future is either hit or miss (usually miss) it is the best evidence presented so far in the debate. By year 3000CE, Man has developed his first extraterrestrial colony on another planet. If it takes 1000yr to colonize Mars, it would take much longer (roughly 3,375,000yr; direct relation) to travel the 19.5 light years. Even if the numbers are irrelevant, it does mean that the Earth must be sustained for another 1000yr, at least./// First of all we cannot predict the future, you cannot use predictions to support your arguments; especially if they are a wild guess. Second, if we do not develop the tech. and the money to get off the Earth before the sun dies so be it. But if we do develop the tech and money, then yes we should leave Earth. \\\This does not mean that all other planets and suns do not have the same problem. By expanding to new solar systems, this problem is then extended to those systems as well, not solving it. It is also within the realm of probability that some of those systems will be even closer to "death." While we must vacate Earth in 4-5 bill yr, until then we can develop the "tech" and gather intelligence of possible locations. By moving everyone ASAP, it will simply place the species in unnecessary danger./// I do not think you understand this point exactly... My point is that if we leave Earth right before the sun dies (and there is a high probability of man putting it off until then) then we will obviously go into a younger solar system, and on the contrary we may actually move into a system with a stronger sun that can last longer than our current one. \\\Simply because each species' self interest to ensure continuity, does not make it right relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. On the contrary, by allowing the suffering of innocent life forms for the actions of this species, it definitely wrong, relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior./// If we CAN save other species, GREAT! But there is a probability that we cannot. And are we just going to stay on the sinking boat that is Earth? Or are we going to man-up and leave these animals behind for the sake of our species. I know it seems mean at first, but is it really moral to imprison the human race on this Earth so to be with the animals during the sun/Earth's death? No. \\\However, it is then immoral to let some individuals die "for the greater good of the species." Because it is the object of the government to protect its citizens [4], and the death of entire colonies is not protection, then there is no more government as the primary function of the government has been nullified. No government would place an egg in each basket if it meant that it would not survive (governments want to preserve itself for it is made of individuals and individuals want to preserve themselves). The government would rather have Homo sapiens sapiens be wiped out than have it revert to the state of nature [5]./// Again I do not think you understand. My point is that the Earth/Sun will die eventually so therefore we should move the Eggs out of this basket ASAP (into another basket with no grenade in it). As you stated before: we are not talking about a fraction of the Human Race, we are talking about the WHOLE. So for the sake of the debate motion, we cannot go into fractions. My Opponent's Arguments: 1) We can colonize, but we will still be on Earth \\\REFUTED/// 2) We still have many years here on Earth, so we need to fix some things \\\REFUTED/// 3)a) The other locations will be just as dangerous \\\DISPROVED/// b) We have enough time to scout out possible locations such that we will have a better chance \\\REFUTED/// 4) It is still immoral to leave Earth \\\REFUTED/// 5) Individuals will not want to move \\\REFUTED/// 6) The government will not want to spread out the human race in the name of survival \\\REFUTED/// =========================================================================== THE VIDEOS ABOVE REPRESENT THE END OF THE WORLD AND WHERE WE COULD BE DURING THE END OF THE WORLD (hypothetically) CHOOSE WHICH VIDEO YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE IN. =========================================================================== Ladies and Gentlemen, put your hands together for the negative rebuttal! http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...