Humanity Should Begin Efforts to Colonize Mars

I appreciate my opponent's response to my arguments. In his previous round, Con seems to have raised some questions about whether or not colonizing Mars is economically feasible. With respect to this main point, I don't think that Con has been successful in demonstrating any real difficulties for my position. C1: Colonizing Mars has numerous practical benefits for modern life. Apart from mere assertion, Con hasn't provided any credible evidence that a decrease in the defense budget by one-fourth would cause interest rates to rise and also slow economic growth. Linda J. Bilmes, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, who teaches budgeting, applied budgeting and public finance, has estimated that the War in Iraq alone cost taxpayers as much as 1 trillion dollars.[1] The U.S. also has military bases all over the world, even though it has ended combat in those areas.[2] Ron Paul, a distinguished congressman and libertarian, points out that this is a poor way to allocate resources.[3] If anything, it's reasonable that the United States' bloated military budget hampers economic progress by diverting resources away from science and technology. Moreover, I don't think it's really an objection to say that many technologies from the space program could have been invented in a different context. The space programs unique focus on aerospace practically guarantees that lots of useful technology will be developed. Of course, this criticism also ignores the value of the core aerospace technology that comes with the research. Con then seems to suggest that I've committed a fallacy because the space program isn't worthwhile. Well, I submit that the goal of the space program is certainly not wasteful. In particular, the space program helps create valuable technology based jobs that drive the economy. Con goes on to suggest we can know that colonizing Mars is wasteful because there is no private Mars colonization project. I fail to see the logic behind this point. If investors were presented with a rational and compelling argument about why colonizing Mars is a good investment, they would be on board. I think that I have such an argument. C2: There are overwhelming economic reasons to colonize Mars. Despite what Con has claimed, 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.[4] Remember, to know the benefits of a scientific mission (economic or otherwise), you have to first know the science. As I've said previously, the fact that going to Mars may pose some risks is not a compelling argument against going to Mars. Lots of things worth doing carry some risk (e.g., driving a car). The real bulk of Con's objection is that short term gain is better than long term gain. That is simply false. Many business ventures take years (and even longer) to become profitable.[5] An intelligent investor is rational to put his or her money in a project that is profitable, even if that project takes a while to turn a profit. Con claims that the economic benefits of colonizing Mars would likely go to a small group of wealthy investors. But he offers no argument to defend this view. Moreover, the economic value of materials like gold and deuterium would be a net gain from Mars. They would only be worthless (or come with no net gain) if the market became too saturated with them, which obviously wouldn't be the case. Con then claims that terraforming Mars is part of the resolution. But that's simply incorrect, as I've pointed out in my very first round: "Although terraforming Mars is not necessary to set up colonies, this possibility shows the incredible potential that the planet has for human life." Con now maintains that Mars' atmosphere would likely be depleted if it were built again. This objection is without merit. Given enough time, our atmosphere on Earth will likely be depleted, too. If Con wants to maintain that Mars' gravity levels represent an insuperable obstacle to life on Mars, he is the one burdened to demonstrate this. Of course, his objections here (and elsewhere) are all prima facie implausible because they aren't recognized as being valid by the actual research scientists who study Mars. C3: Mars has scientific secrets that are valuable and interesting. Con keeps attempting to argue that colonizing Mars doesn't justify the cost. I've already dealt with this argument. Science not only drives the economy, it brings value to life. Learning whether or not there is life on Mars is worthwhile. And getting information about such a fascinating distant planet is valuable. C4: Colonizing Mars helps ensure the survival of the human species. With respect to Con's first argument, he seems to assume that only a few thousand people could survive on Mars. I think that's false. The number would obviously continue to grow and multiply as the planet becomes further developed. Obviously no planet can be self-sufficient forever, including Earth. We would have to keep expanding to other planets in the long run. I completely agree with Con that "We must take proportionate precautions based on the likelihood of a bad event." My point here, which Con has not responded to, is that technology grows at a rapid rate; and we're ignorant of what sorts of deadly technology will be available even 100 years from now. Therefore, given the common occurrence of human conflict, preparing for the worst isn't unreasonable. Remember, I acknowledged that there are cheaper ways to preserve human life in the case of a worldwide catastrophe. I went on to say that C4 alone doesn't carry my argument. But the combined weight of C1-C4 does. 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. Second, my proposal actually subsumes much of Grape's proposal. First, Con argues that "Research on agriculture for a Mars colony cannot provide more knowledge about agricultural on Earth than research on agriculture for Earth." How does my opponent know this? 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. Con asks how hydrological energy can be researched on Mars because the planets' water is all frozen. Apparently the difficulties associated with unfreezing ice are a real problem for my plan. As it turns out, unfreezing ice is actually quite simple. I've argued that research into infrastructure technology is also an important part of colonizing Mars. Building technology sturdy enough to handle the environment of Mars has real benefits for Earth. Moreover, who is going to pay for these buildings that Con wants to build in the Third World? The poor people of the Third World? The government? The private sector out of its own kindness? I think that Con has some explaining to do. Con then argues that pure research on (X) will yield more knowledge of (X). Yes, this is true. But all the research yielded from the various areas of study necessary to colonize Mars are worth more than pouring lots of money into one specific area. Any cost benefit analysis must take this into account. | Conclusion | The bulk of Con's criticism of my argument has been that my plan would cost a lot of money. While this is partially true, it overlooks the fact that many investments worth making initially have a large start up cost; however, the money comes back in natural resources, technology and all the jobs that are created in the process. Taken together, all of these arguments provide a strong cumulative case for colonizing Mars. Sources: http://tinyurl.com...