On Balance Humans Should Colonize Mars by 2040
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 17 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 500
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Colonize: Space colonization (also called space settlement, or extraterrestrial colonization) is permanent human habitation and exploitation of natural resources off the planet Earth
- BoP=PRO
- Mars colony is a priority BUT
- 2040 AD goal is not supported by sober science/econ
- Assume
- cheapest launch during next close approach 2035-37
- Hohmann xfer orbit- 21mos round trip
- 5 man/100kg payload
- We'd need to up NASA
- Mars budget +$55 bil/yr over current $23 bil
- or $1.1 tril over next 15yrs
- that's just first trip!
- 10 trips to start small colony @ 1 million kg
- or $5-$10 tril by 2040/ up to $500 bil/yr
- US would up revenues by 7-15%/yr or add deep to debt
- Big tax increase
- much tech not yet invented
Potential world end far outweighs any econ cost. Zubrin agree, we lose globalization/diversity, "w/o frontier humanism, reason, sci die". Business co-op vastly reduce $ needed. Mining outweigh.
Tech invention is all being developed at exponential rate. Solutions encourage flexibility and creativity.
- PRO must prove future:
- end of Earth < 100 yrs
- that tech invention is "limitless" and will invent all needs
- How has PRO solved
- microgravity health problems
- long-term radiation exposure
- landing on mars w/out thick atmo
- dust proof suits and vehicles
- food?
- Martian soil is poison
- O2 + H2O prod?
- $230bil is Mars shot- there and back. does not include necessary Moon base
- PRO must show cost of colony
- and prove nations will share cost
- colony means > 110 ppl + material + permanent
- Last ME = 66 mil yrs ago
- Mars < 2040 =
- 1st landing & 1st col. simultaneous
- rush job=
- high risk,
- high $
- no in situ testing
- no study=high death rate=slow to no col
- Martian soil poison b/c perchlorates
- plants will grow but poison to eat especially after UV exposure
- MOXIE
- depends on micro orgs, easy die from radiation=colony suffocates
- prototype launched in July,
- untested
- magsail, NEP, scramjets
- uninvented
- time?
- $?
- PRO must prove '36 risks < '54 risks relative to mass extinction odds
- Colony idea can be mere ctrl, no need 110+ ppl [explore->future]
- Sci progress benefits lives already, perfection not essential
- Protect Earth future
- Main issues solved, high possibility exists
- Mining + Terraform + Cheap launch = $ Profit outweigh cost, encourage invest
- BoP=PRO
- We agree Mars Colony but disagree 2040 possible
- CON args=
- need innovation
- $
- practical window for 10 launches in 2035-37 past
- PRO args all speculation
- will invent/invest soon, not now
- 1st landing =/= perm col
- PRO failed to argue 2040 once in args
- PRO only says world ends soon
- but if PROs arg = save humans already too late
- a self-sustaining Mars needs 1MIL min
- but Mars @ 1M pop gens away
- $ space launch > any Mars export $
- ARG to CON! no evidence for 2040
- Thx
Argument: Con’s rebuttal to Pro’s succeeds on at least two points: cost, poisonous soil due to. Best Pro could do on remaining arguments was a draw. Points to Con
Sources. Pro’s sources did not adequately overcome Con’s minimum 2 succeeding arguments. Cost should far exceed Pro’s estimate since Con’s first landing cost, alone, is nearly ¼ Pro’s total, and that is just cost of missions, let alone the habitat requirements, and Pro’s estimate of needed total compliment of settlers would exceed just 4 landings. Poisonous soil is mentioned in one of Pro’s sources, which acknowledges diminished growing capacity, but does not address that cultivated foods, as well, would be poisoned by the soil, rendering inedible “food.” Plus, the resolution of adding organics to native soil would be poisoned, as well. Points to Con
S&G: tie
Conduct: Tie.
Pro simply couldn't put enough argument/proof about mankind 'needing to colonize Mars by 2040, and as Con pointed out and Pro failed to answer thoroughly
The tech for such an enterprise is not up to snuff.
The finance for such an enterprise 'very costly.
What Pro needs is an argument for colonization by 2040 being 'vital. But unless the Earth was to explode or be hit by a giant asteroid in 2040, he simply doesn't have the 'necessity of it down.
Arguments:
Essentially the debate is over whether we can reach mars by 2040, and several are immediately pointed out by Con on this subject. It would clearly not be economically viable, it would require tech that is only theoretical, it would require massive resources to get a base established, no way for long-term growth of food, etc..
Pro's win here is weighed on if they can prove that the harms outweigh the massive struggles the time restraint would cause and that other nations would be willing to help. Neither of these are suffciently argued by Pro, for example: Pro essentially dropping the point that the earth will end in a 100 years, and therefore the BoP of Pro has not been established.
Conclusion: Not only does Pro not fulfill their BoP, but what they do have has been properly rebutted by Con. Not to mention that Con has also established their own case and fulfilled their BoP. Con.
Sources: Both participants use reliable sources that are evenly distributed throughout their arguments. Tie.
BS&G: Both participants's grammar is satisfactory considering the character limits. Tie
Conduct: Both participant's conduct is matched by the other. Tie
Having the "by 2040" in the resolution really makes this impossible for Pro, and Con clearly recognizes that. Too much of the tech that Pro uses to justify this happening in 20 years is untested or theoretical, and while the potential gains are massive, they all require an established colony with no catastrophic problems. That could have been outweighed by the need to leave Earth in order to preserve life after some catastrophic event here, but Pro can't win by just establishing that such a problem is likely; he had to show that it is also imminent. I don't see evidence of that in his arguments. So, why not wait until past the year 2040? Do we lose something by not accomplishing this beforehand? I don't see any reason not to wait and get this technology where it needs to be to make the mission safe. That's enough to warrant a Con win.
Pro stated that the benefits outweighs the expenses overall on a mars colony, but ignores that it is economically unrealistic in 20 years. Con put sources saying that a Mars colony would require too much money just for The initial flight, all that Pro only provided that a mars colony in the future, limit removed, would be beneficial, but even he put no dents on that it is economically dangerous to establish a mars colony in the NEAR future.
Args to con.
I wanted to vote, but this is pretty hard to follow.
Thanks for voting, Intel!
I’ll get to this.
I think, extending to 2100 and having at least 3k characters would help greatly lol. It's almost impossible to prove 2040 in 500 characters
also there was no way for me to win anyways, I was just teasing at your sources
vote plz?
I try to maintain a certain sense of humor in tone, although I don't think it's much good since its more often misinterpretted
Talking like that makes you funnier than most comedians on the television.
You should read the source material more carefully. Please refrain from further arguments in the COMMENTS.
I am not sure why you are using double-edged sources that explain the problem within paragraphs of introducing them lol. You taking advantage of the 500 char limit?
also here's the source I forgot for cell phones, PC, Fridge if you need it: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/infographics/infographic.view.php?id=11358
wrong source for 6th mass extinction, this is the correct one: https://www.pnas.org/content/117/24/13596
we can redo this at 10k characters after it's over if you want. 500 char is hella tough
*sweats* I wasted too much characters saying "If even start can be accomplished, rest of the world's effort can work together to resolve this problem." lol
note to self to use this article in future. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.22.749&rep=rep1&type=pdf
I think you will find that 500 characters is infinitely harder than 3,500 lol
I tend to like a lot of abbreviations, so if you have any limitations on abbr's let me know.
I tend to like a lot of abbreviations, so if you have any limitations on abbr's let me know.
I studied the art of micro-debate under the tutelage of Trent0405.
it's okay. I haven't seen you do much with 500 char except offer a syllogism. It's hard to say who will win if you're stripped of the ability to cite my words or waste characters defining ideas/burden of proof
I love a Mars debate. Nevertheless, if you'd prefer I can withdraw from this debate if you'd rather somebody else took it.
OH NO ITS OROMAGI