It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Round 3. Semper Fortis v Esdad71: Might as well be on Mars

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   
The topic for this debate is "NASA's funding and efforts should be concentrated towards the colonization of other planets in our solar system".

Semper Fortis will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Esdad71 will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.


A post may not be any longer than 5,500 characters, using the ATS character counter.
Closing posts may not be any longer than 3,500 characters.

This character limit includes all board code, links, etc.
Extra characters will be deleted from the end of your post.

Please notice that the character counter counts backwards. If for some reason your character counter won't let you post a full 5,500 characters in one post, make a second post to finish your 5,500, and then u2u me and let me know.


Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.


Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.


Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate. Limited grace periods may be allowed if I am notified in advance.


Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.




posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Debate Title


"NASA's funding and efforts should be concentrated towards the colonization of other planets in our solar system".

Semper’s Opening

Thank you The Vagabond for your continued support for these debates where we are allowed to pit ourselves against each other in perhaps the sanest of all competitions.

Thank you as well Esdad71 for debating me on this wonderful topic; I am looking forward to the battle.


In this debate, I will concentrate on the “why” and not the “how”.

As the statement is definitive and I am in the “Pro” position, the question of “How” we are going to colonize is made irrelevant; the fact that we should concentrate toward that goal, my contention.

On to the debate:



Global Warming
Nuclear Holocaust
Natural Disaster
Rogue Asteroid
Pandemic
ETC

The more knowledge we accumulate about this rock we call home, the more and more we realize how very fragile our ecosystem really is. How very easily we could destroy that ecosystem with all of our technology and aggression. How very close we have already come.

If so, then what?

Where do we go?

Do we go underground in the vague hope that at some point before we become extinct, the planet heals herself? Do we create artificial, self contained ecosystems and doom ourselves to that life for perhaps the duration of our existence?

In this debate I will show how very fragile our ecological system really is, I will also show you how very dependent we are on that system.

I will further show you why it is absolutely necessary to colonize other planets and moons in our Solar System to prepare for a natural disaster, or manmade calamity, of global proportions.


I will convince you of the foolishness of not already working toward the colonization of the Moon and Mars.

I am going to be pointing out the many instances in the history of our time on this planet, where we have come very close to destroying all life as we know it. Times were the Earth has almost been destroyed by external and internal forces far beyond our control.

Finally I will be illustrating the many other, perhaps equally successful species that are now extinct due to the same kind of disasters that threaten us.

During this debate we must concentrate on the extinction level events that have already occurred in the history of this planet that we call home.

We must also concern ourselves with the weapons that we have created in our arrogance that have the potential of destroying all life on this planet many times over.

We shall not forget to discuss the diseases that destroyed a huge percentage of the then current population in our past and the possible effects of such a Pandemic should it occur again in a population as dense as ours is now.


I assure you that all is not doom and gloom. With our current technological potential and knowledge, the possibilities of colonization of the most near planetary bodies, is very real and possible. It is simply a matter of will.



The possibility of an “End Times” scenario is nothing new. I would postulate that it is as old as man. Yet, with our almost sudden dependence on technology, mass increases in population and insistence on waging war, we draw ourselves even nearer to such inevitability.

The number of ways that “we” could destroy this planet is as varied as our imagination; the number of ways this planet could destroy herself, equally as varied. When one considers the external physical universe, comets, asteroids, black holes, etc, it is a miracle that we have lasted as long as we have.


Yet we have.

We have lasted and we have prospered, attaining a level of technological advancement that boggles the contemporary mind. Now all that is at question here is what we do with this knowledge. Do we continue on as we are, hoping for the best from our planet, our universe and fellow man? Or do we make ready for what now seems inevitable? Are we not obligated to ensure the continuance of the species by using our technology and knowledge to prepare for ourselves a “New World” where we can go in the event our present surroundings become untenable?

The answer is obvious as is the solution.

The colonization of other planets; Ecosystems that we create and control located a safe distance away from the planet earth and removed from the effects of any devastation that will eventually happen here are not things we need to be exploring only, they are mandatory requirements for our existence and we should be actively working towards them.

Thank you

Semper



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I would first like to say Hello to all the of the ATSNN community and to thank the Vagabond for this fantastic opportunity to spread critical thinking to the masses. To Semper fortis, good luck and let’s have some fun. This is a topic that can go in many, many different directions and I have a feeling it will. One with the show….


Earth. Such a simple yet complex organism that as a human sometimes we forget that we are but a small part of a larger picture, just another piece of a puzzle that every so often changes due to catastrophic circumstance or evolution of Earth as a planet over the course of 4 billion years. 4 billion years. Let that sink in and then realize that we have about 8000 years of recorded history. Folks, we have just started to learn about Mother Earth so why is there a rush to find another place to live?

Mother Earth is currently the landlord for famine, war, empowerment and despair. However, it is also a place of life, never ending wonder and an ocean that is mapped but not explored. Over 70% of the planet is water, and that is where we should look to live. A place on our own planet where we can sustain life and it would be impervious to drought, weather, global warming and even a catastrophic event that could take place on the surface.

Each year over 10 billion dollars is spent on ‘funded” NASA programs, money which could be used to explore the planet where we live where we could use existing technology rather than fork over pork barrel contracts for interstellar construction, security and transportation. The ability to build a safe haven underwater has been researched and there are even hotels that exist in this situation. Why go up when we can go down?

Global Warming is a major concern, but underwater, would there be one until we could research a way to mobilize ‘large amounts’ of people to another planet after colonization rather than just the select few going. We cannot do that now but we can build structures underwater.

Leaving this planet also would not reduce the risk for war but potentially increase it. Would a country not threaten those on Earth to secure a moon of Mars? Of course they would, so all it would add is a theater in space. The fear of rogue asteroid or global famine would be averted if colonization of the ocean was to begin such as in Dubai.

www.designbuild-network.com... Scheduled to be complete in late 2007, this is a fully functional resort hotel. If this can be created, why not “wavescrapers”and other underwater residences? The worlds fair in NY in the 60’s www.retrofuture.com... also talked of those living underwater in the future. Cousteau attempted to prove humans could live and work underwater. In the early 1960s, he began a series of projects called Conshelf (or Continental Shelf Station). The submerged living quarters allowed aquanauts to stay undersea for up to a month.


I will show you how the Earth is a strong and able body that is willing to allow us to inhabit till we can truly find peace in the stars safely and securely. If time is an issue, we have the technology to live underwater but we are decades away from the terraforming a planet in our won solar system yet alone centuries away from going to another. Where should the funding go? My question is, why go up when we can go down?


(edited million years to billion)

[edit on 3-9-2007 by The Vagabond]



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Semperfortis
Reply 1

Welcome esdad71!

"NASA's funding and efforts should be concentrated towards the colonization of other planets in our solar system".

I shall now address my esteemed colleagues opening post.


Over 70% of the planet is water, and that is where we should look to live. A place on our own planet where we can sustain life and it would be impervious to drought, weather, global warming and even a catastrophic event that could take place on the surface.


The one huge problem with my opponents idea, is that we are currently killing the oceans as quickly as we are killing the land mass.

Just look at Jacques Cousteau’s summation of the situation back in 1971.


In 1942, when French Undersea Explorer Jacques Cousteau explored the Sargasso Sea, he could see underwater for about 300 ft. Today, he reports, the visibility has shrunk to barely 100 ft. When he first started diving in the Mediterranean 25 years ago, it was filled with life. Today? "You can hardly see a fish 3 in. long." What has happened is that pollution has caught up with the seas' and oceans' ability to cleanse themselves. Cousteau estimates that the vitality of the seas, in terms of fish and plant life, has declined some 30% to 50% in the past 20 years.
Time.Com


The EPA and NOAA, both reported in 1993 that Coral Poisoning and over fishing are devastating the worlds oceans at a rate that is terrifying.

How do we stop this? The Coral Poisoning is a direct result of pollution and the over fishing is due to the worlds population being out of control and the need to feed them.

We have no place to put the massive tons of pollution we produce each and every day, and our current efforts at population control have been ineffective at best.

The death of the oceans, the birthplace of life, the sustainer of all things living, is perhaps the best argument for the colonization of other planets for the continuance of our species.


Global Warming is a major concern, but underwater, would there be one until we could research a way to mobilize ‘large amounts’ of people to another planet after colonization rather than just the select few going. We cannot do that now but we can build structures underwater.


As Global Warming increases, so does the temperature of the oceans, and as the temperature increases, the ability of the ocean to sustain life, decreases. Far more dramatically than that of the life on land.


End of the World:

The website “Exit Mundi” lists Thirty Five feasible ways the world could end in what would be considered our near future.

Exit Mundi

Each and every one of these is an event that could have already happened, but for some small intervention of luck.

Lets examine some at length.

1300’s ; The Black Death. A Pandemic of epic proportions. Estimates of between One third, and Two thirds of the population of Europe.

WWI
WWII

1960’s
Cuban Missile Crisis. The world came within a hiccup of ending in a flash of fire that day.

Currently

Bird Flu
Missing Atomic Weapons from Russia
Terrorism
Global Warming

So goes the list of possible futures we are currently making for ourselves. Add to this list, the possible events out of our control.

Rogue Asteroid
Comet
Black Hole
Massive Volcanic Eruption

Now we have a future that is terrifying in its uncertainty.


All of this is easily if not cheaply, averted and the continuance of the species assured. The colonization of other planets is absolutely necessary when one contemplates the admittedly partial list I have provided above.

Granted we are talking about the single largest, most expansive, and expensive, task mankind has ever endeavored to undertake. Yet what choice do we have?

When one contemplates the dinosaurs, the single most successful species ever to inhabit the planet, the truth of what we face becomes very clear. They were wiped out in a virtual instant.

They could not prepare, we can.


Population.

Go forth and prosper, that is what we are told. Raise a family, insure that you continue. When does that population reach a level unsustainable by the planet?

In 1970 the world population was, 3,192,211,699, currently we are at, 6 Billion Plus, and growing each and every second.

Just look at the table below to get an idea of the population growth and you can draw your own conclusions as to the future of our planet.



07/01/07 6,602,274,812
08/01/07 6,608,818,475
09/01/07 6,615,362,139
10/01/07 6,621,694,717
11/01/07 6,628,238,381
12/01/07 6,634,570,959
01/01/08 6,641,114,623
02/01/08 6,647,658,287
03/01/08 6,653,779,780
04/01/08 6,660,323,443
05/01/08 6,666,656,022
06/01/08 6,673,199,685
07/01/08 6,679,532,264
Census



Where do we go when the oceans can no longer support life? When this planet will not stand the pressure of our over population? When that rogue asteroid strikes the planet and does to us what it did to the dinosaurs?

The colonization of other worlds is mankind’s last best hope for the future.

Thank You

Semper



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Earth. The Oceans. The destruction of specific areas of the world are supplemented yearly with discoveries such as this. news.bbc.co.uk...
Some 13,000 new marine species have been discovered in the last year according to the article. The project's Ocean Biographic Information System database now includes more than 5.2 million new and previously existing records a rise of 1.1 million entries in the last year. They also state that they know about the first 100m but not much after that. More than half of the oceans on the planet are over 3000m deep, so what is there that we do not know? Are there untapped sources of energy that we must look at harnessing to make sure we do not destroy our precious planet?

Methane, a natural occurring gas is a resource that could be used as an alternative energy source as well as wind or solar power to be used underwater. How about a deep current electrical plant? The ability to power wavescrapers and other buildings is there, but it is untapped. This Methane gas in recent years has also been linked to global warming, so we would be killing two birds with one stone. An energy source that will not only power the underwater structures but can also help the atmosphere by processing the excess Methane released by Earth. Instead of being released into the atmosphere it would be converted to energy, helping global warming in the process. Rwanda does it, so why can’t we? It is a win-win situation.

There is desalination technology that can provide freshwater, there are fish farms and there is hydroponics. A self sustaining eco world in the deep is possible today, without further research. Let’s look at terraforming, shall we?

The Mars Lander project cost close to 400 million. It crashed and there was nothing gained. That money could have been spent to study the loss of coral reefs across the globe, unknown variables such as Red tide and research into how to live under the sea. So to recap, 400 million dollars for a ship that did nothing but end it’s transmission. Can we even begin to think what it would cost to research and then send someone to another planet. I don’t think we can count as high as it would take to terraform in the near future and I do not see the funding. Unless there was a global war or conflict to feed money too, but it would not benefit the common man. So, do we look to the depths of our won earth for a solution? Nope…..

Instead, we are sending another probe, the Phoenix to Mars. It is said to cost over 325 million dollars. This is more money that is spent to study the possibility of life on another planet that could be used to research the life that exists on our own. There are extinctions of species on earth on a daily basis but at the same time there is discovery. Losing something we have is one thing but never knowing what we could have is another.

In 1993, Aquarius was created in the Florida Keys. A place for research it helped to research the loss of coral reefs and provided a place for scientists to find ways to help the oceans and to co-exist. Going below we can help to find the answers to allow us to discover a world that is dark and mysterious, that only needs the light of our knowledge to provide us the answers to continue our existence in this solar systems 3rd planet. Aquarius costs just over 1 million dollars a year to keep it up and running, and this is without a renewable source of energy. This means that we could fund Aquarius for over 500 years for the cost of a few a probes to give what? An answer to global warming? No. So where should we look to live in the 22nd century, Mars or the gulf of Mexico? I say we look to what we have, and then look to the heavens.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Semperfortis

"NASA's funding and efforts should be concentrated towards the colonization of other planets in our solar system".

Reply 2

Let us look at the title of the debate for a moment shall we?

NASA’s funding……..

I must call my opponent on this one. Why would NASA fund research into the sea….???

Just to clarify, NASA is the “National Aeronautic and Space Administration,” hence having nothing to do with the ocean….

Now if we were debating NOAA, then that argument would be valid, we are not however…

I will for the sake of argument address one “fault” with the “living in the ocean” scenario…

No protection from several possible extinction level events.

Examples.


An ocean impact by a 500-yard-diameter asteroid will vaporise about
20 cubic miles of water. At first sight this appears to be insignificant
since it is less than one tenth of the total amount of water that
evaporates from the world's oceans every day (assuming 1 inch of
rain over 10 percent of the Earth's surface each day).

Scientists caution, however, that an ocean impact would send the
water vapour high into the atmosphere, compared with the lower
atmosphere, or troposphere, in the case of evaporation. The upper
stratosphere is normally extremely dry and the effects of a sudden
injection of a large quantity of water vapour are simply unknown.
Other effects of concern are greenhouse warming (water vapour is a
strong greenhouse gas) and ozone depletion. Unlike evaporation, an
ocean impact would send salt (sodium chloride) into the air. The
chlorine in the salt may affect upper atmosphere ozone levels in the
same way as chlorofluorocarbons.
Cambridge Conference


The now anticipated global climate change in the event of an asteroid strike will definitively negate any of the “Farming” that may be going on, be it Hydroponics or Land based. We may survive the blast, to slowly starve.
Not to mention what happens if the underwater base is anywhere near the strike area.

Pandemic:

Having an alternative living environment located here on earth may seem like an ideal situation; the practical application of such an environment being completely cut off from the rest of the earth, and thus immune from a pandemic, practically impossible.

The only possible way to create and maintain an environment completely independent from the earth is one situated away from the planet.

Now back to why NASA should be concentrating on colonization of other planets.

What better use of their time and resources?
As my opponent so accurately pointed out, they currently expend billions of dollars in the routine shuttling of materials and personnel into “near” space and to an aging space station.

Those same moneys need to be concentrated towards the continuation of the species in the event of an extinction level catastrophe. We need to stop playing the welfare father to a world that does not thank us for it anyway, and devote those resources to the colonization effort as well.
Mankind has a record of accomplishments in areas that were needed desperately. What could be more desperate than to prepare for an eventuality that every major scientist on the planet says WILL happen?

Not, MAY happen, WILL.


This is not the time to close the barn door when the horse is already out.

For the fist time in recorded history, we find ourselves with the technology to explore space. With the few billions of dollars we have thrown into it, we have managed to make space travel almost routine. The next most logical step is to ensure the continuance of the species.
This can only be assured with colonization off planet.


No where on this planet can we hide from:

Nuclear Winter
Pandemic
Economic collapse and Social Disorder
Extreme Global Warming
Rogue Black Hole
On and on

All of these and more are predictions, except of course, the asteroid strike and the Pandemic.
These have happened, they are scientific fact and they will happen again.

65 Million years ago, a rock hit our planet that was large enough to destroy and completely eradicate over 70% of all life on earth. An “Extinction Level Event.”

Just as recently as 1908, in Tunguska Siberia, an asteroid that has been estimated at over 100 Thousand Tons, “Air Burst” and flattened forests for a thousand kilometers, killing all in its path. If it had not been an air burst, the devastation would have been far greater.

Dinosaur Extinction Page

Where do you run from the firestorm? Where do you hide?

No Where…


There are no second chances in this area. There is no “going back” and fixing mistakes. The grand civilization that, as my opponent also pointed out, is so very young will cease to exist in an instant.

Granted mankind’s existence on this planet is limited in time, but not the extraordinary number of other species that have existed and been totally destroyed. Extinction is a very real and active phenomenon on this planet.

We will either prepare a safe haven for humanity somewhere off planet, or we will most definitely perish as other species have before us.

Thank you

Semper



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 09:48 PM
link   
The title of thread is actually, Might as well be on Mars, and I am here to show why not and why we need to explore our own planet.

I am not stating that NASA should be exploring the oceans, but that NASA’s funding for extra planetary colonization should be used for a better resource. Terraforming a planet for life requires construction. If we look at the ISS orbital, we can see how long it would take to build a substation on another inner planet. Do we have that much time?

Not only is a planet in need of the ability to host life, but it must be able to also sustain that same life form. The planet earth is unique in that we are shielded from the dangers of the sun, where as other inner planets are not. Also, when I say inner planet I mean only Mars. Can you imagine sending Haliburton to Venus for preparation of an impending research station? I mean, that is what NASA is folks, a black hole for black funding. The danger of the sun would be further be rejected by the underwater structure and wavescrapers that could be providing natural energy to power the structures also. The boundaries are limitless and no one has to go to space. There is less risk and the technology is in place and has been for years.

The climate change that is theorized using 100 years of data, data that recently has been proven false and unusable was provided by NASA themselves, the ones that you argue to fund. An asteroid strike is more likely to occur on another uninhabited planet than earth. Check the facts. Ever see those craters on Mars?

A pandemic can occur at anytime, and to be honest, if there is a virus outbreak, who is going to launch the rockets. I think you could find someone who could operate a boat, barge or even a submersible before you could repopulate Ground Control in Houston or Kennedy.

My greatest fear would be ow would you choose which would benefit from the colonization, as we know the number would be far fewer than if we looked to the oceans and outr own planet to life, and to save something that is far from destroyed or past the point of no return.

Instead we as a notion will continue to fund a pork barrel organization that is a more waste management and repair then cutting edge technology. If we can’t land a craft on Mars with a good success rate, how many astronauts would die before exploration was stopped for a few decades ala the Shuttle disasters. How to continue and prove that the funding is justified?

Who are the scientists who are positive that it is only a matter of time before we are destroyed? At any moment we could wake up to a NASA press conference stating that a near earth object is closer than first thought and we have days to live. We do not have the time and resources to invest in creating habitable planets, we need to cut the funding and save our own. For the first time in history we also have scientists who can save our planet and the computers to create the scenarios we need to address before we are back living with sticks and stones. Other species on this planet have perished, but none had the technology to survive. I am not going to bet on something that happened 65 million years ago and we should not with NASA either.



We cannot fix the past but we can learn from it and be proactive, not reactive. We are but a small line in the grand scale of time on this earth. We are the first civilization that may be capable of saving ourselves on our own planets so why spend it on colonizing another while those on our own planet suffer? Wavescrapers are the future, not Martian condos.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Semperfortis

"NASA's funding and efforts should be concentrated towards the colonization of other planets in our solar system".

Reply 3


Addressing my Opponent:


Terraforming a planet for life requires construction. If we look at the ISS orbital, we can see how long it would take to build a substation on another inner planet. Do we have that much time?


That is exactly my point my friend. NASA is and has been more of a side show up until now. I have shown where creating an artificial environment in the oceans does not protect us as completely as we may need to be protected. If the funding for and support of NASA was considered a prime requirement, their abilities and results would of course rise exponentially. Then they could really get down to the business of guaranteeing the survival of the species.


Not only is a planet in need of the ability to host life, but it must be able to also sustain that same life form.


Artificial environments. Though the cost and difficulty of arriving at these destinations can not be discounted, the environment itself would be no more prohibitive than one of deep ocean structure. Our current technology is advancing at an astonishing rate. To colonize another planetary body, be it the Moon or Mars, is within our grasp.

We have the technology to begin such a venture. Our technology has progressed at an astonishing rate in our recent past and always due to mankind’s endeavors toward self improvement and continuation. How far will we advance when we are focused on our very survival?


The climate change that is theorized using 100 years of data, data that recently has been proven false and unusable was provided by NASA themselves, the ones that you argue to fund. An asteroid strike is more likely to occur on another uninhabited planet than earth. Check the facts. Ever see those craters on Mars?


Catastrophic climate change HAS occurred here on earth, and many times before. It would be foolhardy to assume it will not happen again.

Also, asteroid strikes HAVE occurred here; WORLD CHANGING strikes that destroyed not just one or two species, but over 70 percent of all life on the planet. Betting the future of our species on “more likely” seems very reckless to me.



A pandemic can occur at anytime, and to be honest, if there is a virus outbreak, who is going to launch the rockets. I think you could find someone who could operate a boat, barge or even a submersible before you could repopulate Ground Control in Houston or Kennedy.


That is it exactly!
The idea is to have the artificial environment up and running on the Moon and possibly Mars prior to any major tragedy or catastrophe that will eventually occur here on Earth. There will be no need to “launch” anything. The scientists working in the remote locations will be able to freely and without restriction work at restoring our planet.

The idea is that we survive to rebuild.



Other species on this planet have perished, but none had the technology to survive.


My point exactly….


We cannot fix the past but we can learn from it and be proactive, not reactive. We are but a small line in the grand scale of time on this earth.


And what we must learn is that the planet Earth has a long and accurate history of purging species from existence, with no rhyme or reason. Our only protection is to remove ourselves from that environment and look to the stars. We must be the masters of our own destiny and not depend on an environment that has historically shown itself to be at times, unhealthy for various species.


We are NOT safe here. Make no mistake about it, the threat is very real and much more near than most understand. Moving into the oceans will not guarantee our survival from the most prominent and pervasive threat we face.



Near Earth Objects (NEOs) are plentiful.

If a person lives to be 80, her or his odds of being around when the next multi-megaton blast from an asteroid collision occurs (somewhere on the planet) are roughly 1 in 12.5. Space within Earth's orbit is crowded with Near Earth Objects.

Some recent near misses

* On March 18, 2004, Asteroid 2004 FH passed approximately 26,500 miles above the Earth's surface (one-tenth of the distance to the Moon). Astronomers had detected it just three days before.

* Another near earth object designated 2004 AS1 created concern on Jan 13, 2004. Initial measurements indicated that it would hit Earth within 27 hours. "Astronomers come within minutes of alerting the world to a possible asteroid strike." Wired News

• Near Earth Asteroid 2004 MN4, briefly held a Torino Scale index of 4 (a record high) before being declared safe.

Science Buzz


Scary?

Absolutely.



Now is the time to begin preparing for what is inevitable. If we choose to not prepare for ourselves, we must for our children and our children’s children.

There is no other option.

We colonize, or we die as a species.

Thank You

Semper



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Reply 3. This is it, here we go.....

First, my opponent agrees that NASA is a sideshow. Second, my friend then states that it would be easier to colonize a planet than a submersed structure anywhere in the 70% of the surface that is covered by water. Lastly, my fellow debater continues to attempt to facilitate fear as the driving factor for more expenditures for something they already admitted is a farce and waste of funding. Is something wrong here? I think so and I am going to prove it once again.

Semper agrees to the fact that there would be no one to launch or continue his NASA project if there was a pandemic episode except those who are working on the project. My question to my fellow debater is who chooses who works there? If I work there, can I bring my family? I for one do not want to finance spaceflight and safety for a select few. I would rather to go below.

Natural disaster such as storms could affect the idea of abandoning NASA and going below the surface, but lets first look at some storm history, and look at where we could safely build…

maps.csc.noaa.gov...

Seems that there is a wealth of open ocean anywhere that is not in the Tropics, however since the mid 60’s, there has been a research station in the Florida Keys that has endured more than one named storm and is completely underwater and self sufficient. This technology, decades old, is proven safe. The technology is there. I am sure that the military has some technology that is could lend us to contiunue an underwater colonization.

Also, Lets look at the waste of funding on failed NASA missions. How about Apollo, Columbia and Challenger? Then there are multiple Mars missions as well as probes to Venus. Billions of dollars lost due to poor maintenance, incorrect calculations and attempting to push an envelope that is not yet proven safe. We as a nation are pumping money into an organization that has not made a major change to the Shuttle in over 20 years and we want to colonize a planet? I mean, five percent or 22 of 439 astronauts who have attempted to reach the heavens have died on spaceflights. So, if we shuttle 30,000 people and we lose 1500, is this acceptable? Not for me, and technology may have come a long way but it was only a few years ago we lost brave men and women over our own country in a shower of flames. We need to curb NASA spending and work on our own planet.


Semperfortis stated “Now is the time to begin preparing for what is inevitable. If we choose to not prepare for ourselves, we must for our children and our children’s children. There is no other option. We colonize, or we die as a species.”

If we take the knowledge we have gained from spaceflight and then apply it to the vast open areas of oceans on our own world, can we not save our planet without risk of dying on another? We have the technology to put a man on the moon but we are decades away from colonization. If we are to live in such fear of a NEO's, or a pandemic or nuclear holucost, why wait on the what if of NASA and their track record when we have the ability now to create a safe haven underwater and have a choice of 70% of the surface of Earth.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Semperfortis

"NASA's funding and efforts should be concentrated towards the colonization of other planets in our solar system".

Closing:

My esteemed opponent’s last reply was interesting to say the least and I will address some of his concerns prior to finalizing and condensing all that I have proven to you here in this debate.

The NASA that currently exists is not the subject of the debate. NASA is NOT currently engaged in the Colonization of Other Planets. They are a shuttle service for near space. When NASA and the rest of the Government wake up and understand the umbrella of disaster that we live under, NASA begins the real work towards colonization, then and only then will NASA be working towards the proper goal of the continuation of the species.

As for the Pandemic and my opponents question as to “who” works in such a colony. The intent of my proposition is for the research and construction to be complete, up and running, prior to any disaster.
Such was the reason for my comment, “closing the barn door, before the horse gets out.”
So the question is one that takes care of itself in the practical sense.


If we take the knowledge we have gained from spaceflight and then apply it to the vast open areas of oceans on our own world, can we not save our planet without risk of dying on another?


And yet you claim that NASA is a failure and that we have “Wasted Billions” on space travel. To use your own words.

You can’t have it both ways.

Fear.

Yes, fear is the great motivator. How many inventions have been discovered due to fear? Most weapons of war; fear of the enemy. Medicines, fear of disease and dying.

How should we react to the potential destruction and end to our species? With a relaxed attitude and some underwater getaway that will not survive an asteroid strike?

Remember that the Dinosaurs that lived in the Ocean did not escape the extinction level event just by living in the ocean. Neither will we.




In this debate I have shown you all the many ways this planet can suffer an extinction level event.

I have shown you historical evidence that such an event has already happened, perhaps more than once.

I have proven there is no place on the planet that can completely protect us from many of these events.

I have given you scientific data that clearly indicates an extinction level event is guaranteed in the near future.

I have supplied Scientist Commentary that such an event is a certainty and not speculation.

In this debate, I have made it very clear that we must begin the preparation for off planet colonization in order for the species to survive.

I have shown:

The “who” – Us
The “what” - Extinction level event
The “where” - Planet Earth
The “when” - Our near future

And finally, the “how” do we prepare has been laid out for you.

The colonization of other worlds brings many images to each of us. Not the least of which is the obvious fear of the unknown.
What we do not need is a defeatist attitude where we fail before we begin. The oceans are not safe, the land is not safe, we can not go underground and survive as a species.

The colonization of the Moon, Mars and other worlds is the last best hope for man.

Thank You

Semper



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
In closing, I will show that we have alternatives to extra solar occupation and terra forming giving billions away to NASA. We battle for the boundries we have on Earth, so do we want that in space? Why fund the next cold war when we can stop now and save our own planet.

NASA exists as a shuttle service, and for the next 3 to 4 decades, that is all it will do. It will continue to ferry Shuttle parts and astronauts to another planet or moon to create a place to house those who will eventually live there to create a place for the rest of humanity to live. How long has it taken to complete the ISS? If it is so important, why have we not returned to the moon? NASA does not work the continuation of the species but to complete it’s own agenda.

NASA’s own mission statement says

• To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.
• To advance human exploration, use, and development of space.
• To research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics and space technologies

I see nothing there about saving me from a pandemic or catastrophe let alone the nuclear winter. Read NASA’s own vision and it states “NASA is an investment in America's future. As explorers, pioneers, and innovators, we boldly expand frontiers in air and space to inspire and serve America and to benefit the quality of life on Earth” It is about continuing life on this planet, not wasting money on exploring options to live on other planets and moons.

A proposition for more research is just the point that this debate is about. It is a waste to continue to theorize when there is technology on our own planet, 70% of the planet is water and sorry to tell you but the barn door is shut, and we are building a wavescraper for the horse if we want to continue on planet earth. Take the money that is funneled to NASA for black projects and put it towards creating a better future on our own planet.

We need to not think with fear or destruction for the future, but for the present. Why fund something on another planet or moon that we cannot handle or predict ourselves on our home planet? The earth is the only inner system object that is safe with protection from our atmosphere. It would take years with current technology to travel to an outer system object, and what do we do during that time? Sit and wait, fund more projects that do not get us closer to a safe haven?


The “who” is us, the “what” is our survival, the “where” is here and the “when” is unknown, but perception is the key.

How does one rationalize spending money on something unproven in the harshest of conditions with large time and technical restraint when we could take that money and funnel it to something that could not only save us, but our planet with alternate sources of power and organic farming.


The colonization of the Moon, Mars and other worlds is the next best hope for man in the next century only if we can first create our own planet in our image before attempting to play god in another playground. .

Thank You

EsDAD71 out……



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Great work. The judges will now review the debate.



posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Semper Fortis has won the debate.

Here's what the judges had to say:


there was definately no knock out round. At the end of the day, to me at least, Semper was indeed the winner of this debate



semperfortis wins this round. While both opponets did well, esdad seemed to be on the defensive and tied his strategy to the oceans etc which semperfortis was able to counter easily.




semperfortis has one glowing weakness, and was doing very little to hide it. Both presented strong arguments, but esdad71 was tight on the facts and avoided some of the scare tactics that semperfortis seemed to embrace with each post.

Overall, both should be proud.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join