Write down your position about whether or not to colonize mars.
Write down at least three reasons why you made the decision you made.
Then, provide opposition to two of those reasons.
Colonizing Mars would prove to have more benefits than downfalls considering the importance of survival and discovery, even though it would involve some sacrifices.
Argument 1: Earth is becoming a scary place, it would be a great idea to have a “back up plan” to ensure human survival. Counter: The problem is the people, not the place. We would just make Mars scary. Argument 2: It would be a great display of our country’s power. Counter: It could lower the quality of life for those who go, take away a chance for the typical “American Dream”. Argument 3: Having people living in space could lead to a dramatic increase in research, discovery, and understanding of the universe beyond our own planet.
Yes, I would want to colonize Mars. 1. It would offer a second option for humans once the earth’s environment struggles become worse 2. Economically, we could spend money on colonizing mars while still giving new jobs such as fracking, which right now many are opposed to because it harms the earth 3. We would be able to explore more of the universe from mars Opposition: 1. It would be easier to just fix the earths environment and spend money on that rather than spend money to colonize a new planet 2. The people who colonize Mars will have shorter life spans, which will make it difficult to learn more about the universe.
I think that scientists should work to colonize mars. The earth is in a great state right now but if anything were to happen it would be nice to have somewhere else for people to live. Counter- People need to focus on the earth now and try to clean up all of the pollution that people are making. We should not just run away from the planet. Science is an extremely important field that should always be encouraged and pushed to help make discoveries and build new technology. Counter- The cost of the projects that would need to be created could hurt America and put us in more debt. Mars could have new resources that scientists could use to make new medicines or technology.
Reason: It is likely that at some point before the end, Earth May become uninhabitable, possibly as a result of a natural disaster, such as a meteor colliding with Earth or natural climate change that humans can’t control. Reason: When ethical, humans should explore the bounds of modern science. Opposition: Even ethical research can lead to new capabilities that may not be ethical. Reason: We could discover new species which could help us in scientific or medical fields back home. Opposition: We have species on Earth that are on the verge of extinction already.
I think that we should colonize Mars 1. It gives people a place to go Incase earth become inhabitable. Opposition: why not just spend money on resources to improve earth? 2. It opens up the ability to travel future into space 3. It helps to advance science, as it is an important field, and it would give us more opportunities to further study outer space. Opposition- although it would do good to advance our knowledge of our universe, the cost would be outrageous
I think that colonizing Mars cause too much of a negative impact at this time, despite the obvious benefits.
Arguments:
1.The tremendous cost involved would take away from necessary programs and industries that are important to everyday life on Earth.
2. In the process of preparing Mars to sustain human life, we may damage it just as much as we have damaged Earth.
3. Because this would be a costly endeavor, there would not be fair or even slightly accessible opportunities to become involved for the many people who aren't thriving economically.
Opposition:
1. The sacrifices made on Earth would be worth the scientific gain.
2. It is important to have a back-up plan due to the grim conditions of planet Earth.
If humanity were to colonize Mars, then the result would not be advantageous as many would expect. In fact, colonizing this foreign land could harshly backfire on the settlers. First Argument: Take a moment to reflect on the past. Cultures have been utterly wiped out or severely damaged from groups of people forcing themselves into spaces they do not belong. American settlers, for example, took advantage of Native people because they wanted more land and riches. Mars could provide both of those things for humanity, but it is arguably unethical to claim something that isn’t yours to claim. Counter: Nor human-like beings or animals that are familiar to us are suspected to be living on Mars. All that was found were organic molecules, so humanity would be just moving into a new space at her than diving anyone out. Second Argument: People need to realize that Earth can still be salvaged. Hope is not completely lost for humanity to repair their damaged home. There is no reason to expand humanity’s range because of a ruined planet if that planet is not ruined; it just needs people to put in the effort required to fix it. Fix Earth first! Counter: What if Earth is too far gone? The future is not looking too bright due to all the deforestation, endless pollution, mass extinctions of animal and plant species, and climate change. Third Argument: Humans are not advanced —socially nor technologically— enough to colonize another planet. They lack the technology needed to make Mars livable, and they still need to continue studying whether or not Mars is a planet that people could even live on in the future. There will be too many quarrels between countries and individuals on “who gets what” if there is a new planet to settle.
Although it seems like a great alternative to what is going on in the world, colonizing Mars would have a detrimental impact on Earth itself and it’s inhabitants.
Argument 1: If colonization of Mars were to successfully occur, the millions of years of growth and development that Earth has undergone would be completely ruined. Even if modern issues seem disastrous, life will go on, Earth’s beauty and resources, that cannot be found on Mars, would be abandoned and wasted.
Argument 2: The money that would be thrown away in simply experimenting and perfecting quality human life on Mars would be enormous. If the economy seems monumental now, consider it when copious amounts are poured into trying to colonize a new, and very faraway planet.
Argument 3: Colonizing Mars for the sake of escaping problems could lead to our society becoming even more morally corrupt. Instilling the idea of running away from our problems, literally, instead of fighting them would have a terrible effect on society.
Opposition 1: Earth has existed for hundreds of millions of years and we have advanced enough that it is time to push exploration into colonization. With colonies of life in new places, more is to be discovered.
Opposition 2: Maybe exponentially adding to the universal debt of Earth would be worth the risk because the debt would not affect lives on Mars.
Opposition 3: Earth has gone through far enough that colonizing a new planet is a much needed refresh on human life. New life, on a new planet, would give society the chance to start from the beginning and rewrite previous human error.
Reason: The Earth may soon become uninhabitable, and this will give people a place to go. Opposition: The money and effort spent on creating a new habitable plant could be spent on fixing the already habitable planet we have now. Reason: It increases findings in science, and may bring us to places in technology we didn't know were possible. Opposition: The cost of this could be much to high, and there's no specific reason to discover more about another planet while ours is just fine.
Argument 1: Mars has a diameter that only equates to 53% of Earth’s diameter. Mars is not large enough to hold a large population. Population control is already an issue on Earth, imagine how strict laws would become to keep Mars’ census down. Counter 1: Colonizing Mars does not mean we would all evacuate there and overpopulate. We’re not rabbits.
Argument 2: Mars lacks sufficient sources of water or food. Earth is nearly 70% water, compared to the desert red planet. Counter 2: The International Space Station has water that is recycled and purified from human waste. They also have grown their own vegetables and fruits.
Argument 3: Mars does not have an atmosphere that provides oxygen. Counter 3: Oxygen tanks would be used until the colony is completed. From there, everywhere would be oxygenated in the colony. To explore the terrain, one would wear a space suit.
Colonizing Mars would prove to have more benefits than downfalls considering the importance of survival and discovery, even though it would involve some sacrifices.
ReplyDeleteArgument 1:
Earth is becoming a scary place, it would be a great idea to have a “back up plan” to ensure human survival.
Counter:
The problem is the people, not the place. We would just make Mars scary.
Argument 2:
It would be a great display of our country’s power.
Counter:
It could lower the quality of life for those who go, take away a chance for the typical “American Dream”.
Argument 3:
Having people living in space could lead to a dramatic increase in research, discovery, and understanding of the universe beyond our own planet.
Yes, I would want to colonize Mars.
ReplyDelete1. It would offer a second option for humans once the earth’s environment struggles become worse
2. Economically, we could spend money on colonizing mars while still giving new jobs such as fracking, which right now many are opposed to because it harms the earth
3. We would be able to explore more of the universe from mars
Opposition:
1. It would be easier to just fix the earths environment and spend money on that rather than spend money to colonize a new planet
2. The people who colonize Mars will have shorter life spans, which will make it difficult to learn more about the universe.
I think that scientists should work to colonize mars.
ReplyDeleteThe earth is in a great state right now but if anything were to happen it would be nice to have somewhere else for people to live.
Counter- People need to focus on the earth now and try to clean up all of the pollution that people are making. We should not just run away from the planet.
Science is an extremely important field that should always be encouraged and pushed to help make discoveries and build new technology.
Counter- The cost of the projects that would need to be created could hurt America and put us in more debt.
Mars could have new resources that scientists could use to make new medicines or technology.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that we should colonize Mars.
ReplyDeleteReason: It is likely that at some point before the end, Earth May become uninhabitable, possibly as a result of a natural disaster, such as a meteor colliding with Earth or natural climate change that humans can’t control.
Reason: When ethical, humans should explore the bounds of modern science.
Opposition: Even ethical research can lead to new capabilities that may not be ethical.
Reason: We could discover new species which could help us in scientific or medical fields back home.
Opposition: We have species on Earth that are on the verge of extinction already.
I think that we should colonize Mars
ReplyDelete1. It gives people a place to go Incase earth become inhabitable.
Opposition: why not just spend money on resources to improve earth?
2. It opens up the ability to travel future into space
3. It helps to advance science, as it is an important field, and it would give us more opportunities to further study outer space.
Opposition- although it would do good to advance our knowledge of our universe, the cost would be outrageous
I think colonizing Mars has rewards greater than its risks so for that reason I feel like we should try to colonize Mars at some point.
ReplyDeleteArguments:
1) Colonizing mars could bring more room if Earths condition got worse or if we began over populating
2) It could provide great new scientific discoveries that could branch much farther than just colonizing mars
3) Similar to what Megan mentioned above, colonizing mars could open a large amount of new jobs for people in need of work
Counters:
1) The experimental phase could cost people, let alone money. It is dangerous, it could bad thing for the population in some way.
2) The power and money science requires should be used for helping Earth now, both trying to renew it and prevent further damage.
I think that colonizing Mars cause too much of a negative impact at this time, despite the obvious benefits.
ReplyDeleteArguments:
1.The tremendous cost involved would take away from necessary programs and industries that are important to everyday life on Earth.
2. In the process of preparing Mars to sustain human life, we may damage it just as much as we have damaged Earth.
3. Because this would be a costly endeavor, there would not be fair or even slightly accessible opportunities to become involved for the many people who aren't thriving economically.
Opposition:
1. The sacrifices made on Earth would be worth the scientific gain.
2. It is important to have a back-up plan due to the grim conditions of planet Earth.
If humanity were to colonize Mars, then the result would not be advantageous as many would expect. In fact, colonizing this foreign land could harshly backfire on the settlers.
ReplyDeleteFirst Argument:
Take a moment to reflect on the past. Cultures have been utterly wiped out or severely damaged from groups of people forcing themselves into spaces they do not belong. American settlers, for example, took advantage of Native people because they wanted more land and riches. Mars could provide both of those things for humanity, but it is arguably unethical to claim something that isn’t yours to claim.
Counter:
Nor human-like beings or animals that are familiar to us are suspected to be living on Mars. All that was found were organic molecules, so humanity would be just moving into a new space at her than diving anyone out.
Second Argument:
People need to realize that Earth can still be salvaged. Hope is not completely lost for humanity to repair their damaged home. There is no reason to expand humanity’s range because of a ruined planet if that planet is not ruined; it just needs people to put in the effort required to fix it. Fix Earth first!
Counter:
What if Earth is too far gone? The future is not looking too bright due to all the deforestation, endless pollution, mass extinctions of animal and plant species, and climate change.
Third Argument:
Humans are not advanced —socially nor technologically— enough to colonize another planet. They lack the technology needed to make Mars livable, and they still need to continue studying whether or not Mars is a planet that people could even live on in the future. There will be too many quarrels between countries and individuals on “who gets what” if there is a new planet to settle.
Although it seems like a great alternative to what is going on in the world, colonizing Mars would have a detrimental impact on Earth itself and it’s inhabitants.
ReplyDeleteArgument 1: If colonization of Mars were to successfully occur, the millions of years of growth and development that Earth has undergone would be completely ruined. Even if modern issues seem disastrous, life will go on, Earth’s beauty and resources, that cannot be found on Mars, would be abandoned and wasted.
Argument 2: The money that would be thrown away in simply experimenting and perfecting quality human life on Mars would be enormous. If the economy seems monumental now, consider it when copious amounts are poured into trying to colonize a new, and very faraway planet.
Argument 3: Colonizing Mars for the sake of escaping problems could lead to our society becoming even more morally corrupt. Instilling the idea of running away from our problems, literally, instead of fighting them would have a terrible effect on society.
Opposition 1: Earth has existed for hundreds of millions of years and we have advanced enough that it is time to push exploration into colonization. With colonies of life in new places, more is to be discovered.
Opposition 2: Maybe exponentially adding to the universal debt of Earth would be worth the risk because the debt would not affect lives on Mars.
Opposition 3: Earth has gone through far enough that colonizing a new planet is a much needed refresh on human life. New life, on a new planet, would give society the chance to start from the beginning and rewrite previous human error.
We should colonize Mars.
ReplyDeleteReason:
The Earth may soon become uninhabitable, and this will give people a place to go.
Opposition: The money and effort spent on creating a new habitable plant could be spent on fixing the already habitable planet we have now.
Reason: It increases findings in science, and may bring us to places in technology we didn't know were possible.
Opposition: The cost of this could be much to high, and there's no specific reason to discover more about another planet while ours is just fine.
I do not think we should colonize Mars.
ReplyDeleteArgument 1:
Mars has a diameter that only equates to 53% of Earth’s diameter. Mars is not large enough to hold a large population. Population control is already an issue on Earth, imagine how strict laws would become to keep Mars’ census down.
Counter 1:
Colonizing Mars does not mean we would all evacuate there and overpopulate. We’re not rabbits.
Argument 2:
Mars lacks sufficient sources of water or food. Earth is nearly 70% water, compared to the desert red planet.
Counter 2:
The International Space Station has water that is recycled and purified from human waste. They also have grown their own vegetables and fruits.
Argument 3:
Mars does not have an atmosphere that provides oxygen.
Counter 3:
Oxygen tanks would be used until the colony is completed. From there, everywhere would be oxygenated in the colony. To explore the terrain, one would wear a space suit.