Login/Sign Up




Should mankind colonize Mars?
Sci-fi

ohyes
Oct 25, 2007
10 votes
17 debaters
3
1
1


+ Add Argument

4
Yes


jonjax71
Oct 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Eventually it should be an option but Earth's technology is still 100 years or more away from populating our neighbor. It surely will be visited and explored by humans in the next 10 to 30 years but that is not populating the planet



 
gogopoet
Oct 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Humans evolved to explore and colonize. There isn't much unspoiled space left here. In fact, there isn't much livable space left here. And a lot of the people who cause the most social problems are the ones with what it takes to start new settlements, thus we would be reducing crime here while making more room.

 
unlabled00
Oct 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: juggernaut Show

... invading a country already inhabited by man. Smart?

 
brivapor
Oct 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
its about to happen
brave new world it is

maybe aliens havnt contacted man kind because they are waiting for mankind to evolve into higher level beings

 
gogopoet
Oct 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Brett Stubbs Show

Within the 48 continental states the most sparsly populated area of the nation is Hudspeth Co, Tx, or at least it was when I went there in 1995 looking to buy property. I couldn't travel more than 1/2 mile in any given direction without seeing a human habitation of some sort.

The problem is that humans need more open space than that. The question is, how much?

 
Brett Stubbs
Oct 26, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

I'm not sure what part of Texas that is, but I know East Texas has a lot of wide open (wooded...but wide open) land. My in-laws bought a few hundred acres a few years ago, for dirt cheap. It's a bit out in the boonies, but it's nice...only problem is, exxon probably owns the mineral rights.

 
unlabled00
Oct 26, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: juggernaut Show

Except for the fact that its not colonizing at all. Thats called invading.

 
thrashee
Jul 12, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
One of the only things we have left to define ourselves as human is this very human thirst to explore and branch out.

Save the arguments regarding cost, war, and exploitation for earth. Let's let our imaginations and that very human characteristic called curiosity soar.

 
vicw
May 05, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
In the short term no. Too much on our plate here. But, once we are able to explore the solar system cheaply with a higher level of technology then why not? we shouldn't limit ourselves forever based on issues that affect us only in the present.

 
+ Add Argument

6
No


juggernaut
Oct 25, 2007
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Man cannot survive on Mars without space equipment. Sending everybody out to space is a risk. Also, it will cost too much money and time to even be worth it. We are better off invading Japan.

 
sandifromlargo
Oct 25, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
WHY??? Haven't we done enough damage here? Besides we haven't totally destroyed this planet yet. Shouldn't we do that before we start destroying someplace else?

OR maybe Mr Bush has asked the question, "Can we go to war with whoever else may occupy the territory?" AND YES, I know that sounds un-American, but at the rate we are killing and injuring our men and women, I'm sure he is looking for SOMETHING else to distract us! Am I Bush bashing? Yup! I'm bashing his whole damn administration. WE cannot afford to wait until Jan 20 a year from now, we as a nation are already utilizing HOSPICE for our existence. The cure for this disease is available, we just need to USE it!

 
tggdan3
Oct 26, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
we still rely on fossil fuels. how will we keep the air systems on mars working properly before we've mastered renewable energy?

 
ohyes
Oct 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
No it's too expensive. We should concentrate on matters at home.

 
thales
Oct 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
There's still plenty of empty space in North Dakota.

 
Brett Stubbs
Oct 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

There isn't much left to explore, but there is plenty of livable space. At least within the United States. Outside of the major cities, and outside of California, there are miles and miles of uninhabited forests, mountains, and plains. Drive accross country, and that's mainly what you see, lots and lots, and lots of land.

That being said, I do like the idea of reducing crime.

 
juggernaut
Oct 25, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

Smarter than colonizing Mars. Japan is not at a strong state right now.

 
gogopoet
Oct 26, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: Brett Stubbs Show

Hudspeth Co. is in west Texas. Look up Van Horn on an I-map. The population is limited there in part by the fact that the region is one of the major producers of uranium, meaning most of the water, what there is of it, is toxic to humans.

I lived in E. Texas nine years, so I know there are still large tracts of trees. That doesn't mean the region isn't overpopulated. The question still remains; how many acres is needed to support a human? I don't mean how small a lot can one person live on with all the necessities of life magically appearing at Wal-Mart. How many acres of farmland does it take to support one human and how many acres of wilderness does it take to support the farm?

 
believeit
Oct 27, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I don't think we should. I think we should learn a lot more about our own planets oceans than about another Planet. I mean, we live on this earth, yet we still don't know what is at the depths of the ocean. But we still want to settle on mars? Pittifull.

 
believeit
Oct 27, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Sandifromlargo, you sound like destroying earth is a good idea. I think we should preserve our planet as long as we can so we can save money now. We definetly need it with the condition of our oconomy and all.

 
jjbalog
Apr 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
We as a people can't even live together on the planet Earth, can you imagine trying to live on Mars. We have had two World Wars can you imagin having an interplanetary war. The axis powers coming into the southern poles of Mars. Compleatly outrageous.

 
xjocax
Apr 22, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: unlabled00 Show

uhmmm... Have you ever heard about a little thing called... IRONY? (lol)

 
xjocax
Apr 22, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

You have to reask this, your question is "Should mankind colonize Mars"...

Now they shouldn't...
In the future they sure will

 
melonchollylife
Sep 30, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
We would just rape the planet of all it's use like we are doing to ours.

Plus, in this recession (yeah, I know it's technically over, but has anyone felt the effects of that? I haven't.) there is very little money to spend on things that can be put of for say...

A few hundred years. When we run out of resources or something. I wish I had a stronger knowledge of it, this could be a pretty good debate.

Let's have an example:

When we officially screw up our world, then we have the option (theoretically) of screwing up Mars. If, say, an nuke is dropped (launched? ugh, I don't know enough about weapons of mass destruction) and there are survivors that need a new home, and the
technology is readily available, then we can move there and wait a few thousand years before civilization screws itself over again.

And then what?

They (they being NatGeo) said that there may be a moon of one of the planets in our solar system that can hold human life. So we move there and screw that planet up?
When does it end?

Now, admittedly, that may be a negative example, but even if we learn from our mistakes the first time around (which we might not), human nature is bound to kick in and screw up the new planet again.

So I dunno really. This is all based off the theory that we CAN, of course. xD

 
pacattack
Mar 10, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
No, colonize Europa. It has a lot of water, and most probable thing in the rest of the solar system to have life.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates