Insert a Pseudo-Witty Title Here...
There is much in my opponent's previous reply that I will be addressing head on, but we'll take our time and tackle it when the time is right. But
something that we will address right now is a major oversight in his rebuttal's and something he continues to rely on heavily. So when we expose
this oversight for what it is, we will all sit back and watch how he comes back for his second knockout rebuttal
The following statement truly emphasizes what I will be addressing...
Originally posted by Skyfloating
By the time those slowpokes finally reach their destination, we will have invented something better.
My opponent has continuously failed to look at the topic at hand in a holistic manner. He allows for variables that are not applicable whatsoever.
When the time comes that we are leaving this planet, for whatever reason, our abilities and manpower are going to be severely depleted
Keeping in mind that the journeys that I have proposed will take less than a single generation and if these ships are sent into space, we're not
going to be able to sit back on our asses and create better technology. If we had the ability to be creating bigger and better, why would we be even
sending ships into space? So when the time comes that our race parts ways with this earth that we have called home so for many generations, it will
be because we had no other choice
. We are not going to part ways with this planet if we can still live here. Why would we?
So my opponent's flawed assertion that we will be sending ships out and still sitting back creating better technology is so off it's mark that I am
confused to the extent that I am not really sure what he is thinking. Why would he possibly think that generations would be sent into space while
others stayed behind to perfect the approach?
Another key point that my opponent continuously overlooks is the simple fact that when this day comes, whatever our approach is, it is going to be
. As I have stated previously, it will be the darkest day known to man. So the individuals that are alive during these days are going
to be forced to make great sacrifices to assure the longevity of the human race. Sacrifices will be made and they will be necessary. There are no
two ways about this. My opponent tries to paint a picture where no sacrifices are necessary. And then he also tries to say that he's not presenting
a case of fiction.
We will be uprooting our civilization, tearing families apart, working with no economy, and saying goodbye to everything that we have known since time
has begun. Think of all of the wonders of the world that we will never see again. Yet my opponent tries to paint this transition as seamless. As
the reader and as a judge, do not let him get away with this.
Some of the details I have presented are not shots out of the ball park or feats of perfection. Unlike my opponent, I will be honest with the
material I present and the future that we all share. Can either of us state that a manned interstellar space mission or a civilian mission to Mars is
going to be air tight with all variables considered? No, we can not. So we are left with a complex equation that we must approach in an honest
manner if we are going to live on.
My opponent is sly, very sly. He provides links and displays images that he hopes to invoke knee-jerk responses from our readers and judges. But at
the end of the day, facts are facts and all of the fiction, smoke screens, and lights that you try to use.. the truth remains. My opponent has posted
an image of what Mars would look like if we were to move forward with terraforming its' surface. Well let's take a moment to take a closer look at
The terraforming (literally, "Earth-shaping") of a planet, moon, or other body is the hypothetical process of deliberately modifying
its atmosphere, temperature, surface topography or ecology to be similar to those of Earth in order to make it habitable by humans.
This is a hypothetical process. Hypothetical.. as in the belief of a concept without evidence. As in... fiction
Another simple fact from the same link that my opponent continues to overlook.
Humans currently do not possess the technological or economic means to terraform another planet or moon.
Are we beginning to see this for what it really is? Generation ships at speeds less than that of light is not a perfect scenario, but it is
. If it comes down to the extinction of the human race or a generation ship, what are you going to decide? Necessary sacrifices must
be made in order to assure the longevity of our race. My opponent mocks my proposals that are empirically feasible, and proposes concepts that have
been empirically proven to be fiction. When it is all said it done, we need to consider options that we can actually utilize and not something that
sounds or looks pretty. I present facts while my opponent presents smoke screens and light shows. It looks and sounds pretty, but it's not
My opponent has put all of his eggs in one basket. His only song and dance for this evening is the terraforming of Mars. For the sake of discussion,
I am asking you to fathom a ballpark figure for how long it would take to terraform the surface of Mars and how much it would cost. The numbers are
The initial cost of such projects as planetary terraforming would be gigantic, and the infrastructure of such an enterprise would have to be built
from scratch. Such technology is not yet developed, let alone financially feasible
So even as unrealistic as this concept is considering the time, effort, and cost... is this an actual long term resolution? Could we inhabit the
planet for the rest of time? When we move forward with this transition, we are obviously going to be in it for the long haul. With that in mind, I
ask our readers and judges to consider the fact that it is entirely possible that after all of the terraforming of Mars' surface, it would return to
it's current state and be completely unlivable for our race.
It is possible that over geological timescales—tens or hundreds of millions of years—Mars could lose its water and atmosphere again, possibly to
the same processes that reduced it to its current state.
Knowing what we know, is this the basket that you would want to put all of your eggs in? I wouldn't dare consider relying on this for a single
debate let alone the continuity of the human race. So not only is this concept completely unrealistic, it goes against logic.
Now this is something that we may not all agree with, but I for one overtly object to the terraforming of another planet. What if our planet was
invaded by another race and they tried to terraform our own, thus making it inhabitable. If in the future this concept does become a reality, are we
not wiping out entire civilizations by terraforming the whole planet? Would we mourn the billions of men, women, and children that would be
eradicated in the terraforming of Earth just as much as we would those that we might be killing in this process?
All things considered, I for one would rather take the time and search for a planet that is habitable today and possibly unoccupied, or at least not
consumed; rather than adjusting the habitats of whole civilizations.
(1) Do you believe that terraforming another planet is an ethical dilemma?
(2) How do you respond to the fact that it is a possibility that after terraforming Mars, it would resort back to its' current state and deemed
inhabitable for the human race?
(3) If we had to leave Earth tomorrow, would you prefer an interplanetary mission to Mars or a generation ship to Proxima Centauri.
(4) If Mars is currently habited by civilizations that we are unaware of, would you prefer we eradicate this civilization in order to take the
planet for our own satisfaction; or look for another planet?