Continued space exploration is vital for the advancement...

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

RESOLVED: Continued space exploration is vital for the advancement of civilization.

this is the new UIL topic for the fall semester. I will be posting comments, links, and arguments with anyone who decides to get a head start on the topic. Rolling Eyes

Let me tell ya, we are in for a fun year!!!!!

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 11,739 • Replies: 165

No top replies

It can advance a civilization, but is not necessary for an advancement. Civilization can be advanced in different ways.

0 Replies

That is going to be the toughy, huh? I can prove that advancements are made, but the only thing the neg. has to prove is that advancements can be made in other ways, proving that space exploration is not VITAL. tricky, tricky

0 Replies

Define advancement of civilization please

0 Replies

the earliest civilizations began thousands of years ago, whereas space exploration began less than 50 years ago--unless observing the heavens is considered to be a form of space exploration. so, unless one believes that civilization did not advance in any way until 50 years ago, it's clear that space exploration was not vital to its advancement until then, and there's no reason to expect it to be vital now, unless something happened in the last 50 years that makes it vital.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

the earliest civilizations began thousands of years ago, whereas space exploration began less than 50 years ago--unless observing the heavens is considered to be a form of space exploration. so, unless one believes that civilization did not advance in any way until 50 years ago, it's clear that space exploration was not vital to its advancement until then, and there's no reason to expect it to be vital now, unless something happened in the last 50 years that makes it vital.

The baby is beginning to grow up and cannot stay in its cradle forever, comfortable though it may be.

0 Replies

I know that much, I more need arguments for the affirmative side. I need a way to PROVE that it is VITAL for space exploration to continue. Could I possible use the fact that we are swiftly outgrowing the Earth? Is there evidence of that? hmmmm.....

0 Replies

I, too, am bothered by the word 'vital', but here are some pros:

(1)The population explosion on Earth shows no signs of abating. It's impossible to enforce birth-control measures in most third-world nations and advances in medicine have meant diminishing infant deaths and increased longevity in all industrially advanced nations. We're going to run out of living space unless we find new worlds to colonize.

(2)If learning and increased knowledge is an asset to civilization in its own right (i.e. regardless of practical applications), as most civilized societies assert, then space exploration can only add to our knowledge and understanding. Q.E.D., space exploration is necessary.

(3) As for those practical applications, we don't know what's out there yet. Further exploration could lead to advances in medicine and/or discovery of new energy sources to be used right here on earth.

That's a start.

I sure wish they'd take that V word out of the proposition, though. Personally, I think space exploration is a good thing but not necessarily 'vital' to continued human progress. But don't tell anyone I said that.

0 Replies

not only is global population on the rise, as merry andrew points out, but resources are being depleted at the same time. the big question about space exploration is, can it develop soon enough to have much impact on the day-to-day lives of ordinary people? it has had some impact, already, as in the use of satellites to facilitate communication. or if technology is developed to detect and destroy asteroids on a collision course with earth, for instance, then space exploration could be indeed vital. but if the problems that seem to plague NASA persist, on the other hand, space exploration could also divert funds from other fields of research that might have more immediate impact.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

and there's no reason to expect it to be vital now, unless something happened in the last 50 years that makes it vital.

that vital something is called "satellite communication, imaging and navigation"

0 Replies

http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/em/8/4.cfm

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/Research/he3.html

0 Replies

excuse me, still waiting for definition of the term "advancement of civilization"

we can speculate all we want, but until the term is defined, how can one determine if it's vital?

0 Replies

hyper426 wrote:

I know that much, I more need arguments for the affirmative side. I need a way to PROVE that it is VITAL for space exploration to continue. Could I possible use the fact that we are swiftly outgrowing the Earth? Is there evidence of that? hmmmm.....

I'm sure that the human race could have remained confined to equatorial Africa forever. It would not necessarily have resulted in extinction of the species. So in that sense, spreading to cover the Earth was not vital. Similarly, we don't have to explore space to keep from becoming extinct, but in both cases, what a terrible loss of our potential. I think that if you try to prove that we should do it to keep from dying, you're barking up the wrong tree.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

..., on the other hand, space exploration could also divert funds from other fields of research that might have more immediate impact.

And Queen Isabella of Spain could have helped a lot of poor people with her jewels instead of donating them to Columbus, but in the long run, her contribution was well spent.

0 Replies

Both good points, Brandon.

0 Replies

brahmin wrote:

yitwail wrote:
and there's no reason to expect it to be vital now, unless something happened in the last 50 years that makes it vital.

that vital something is called "satellite communication, imaging and navigation"

those may be necessary for the preservation of civilization, but are they sufficient for its advancement? as chai tea says, a definition of advancement is probably in order. in a sense, there can't be advancement without preservation, but i'm not sure that makes satellite technology vital. in the long term, there will be a super volcano explosion, either at Yellowstone or Lake Toba in Sumatra, and the ensuing catastrophe will be of the same magnitude as an asteroid impact. space colonization may be the only countermeasure to a disaster of that magnitude, but civilization could keep advancing right up to the moment it happens, and so something could be vital for preservation and yet in no way hinder advancement by its absence.

0 Replies

yeah yitwail
without having common ground on what is being considered advancing civilization, everyone here is just blowing smoke up each other ass, using a lot of superfluous words.

what i consider an advancement in civilization will be different from each other.
true for all of us here.

so - - - - ?

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

yeah yitwail
without having common ground on what is being considered advancing civilization, everyone here is just blowing smoke up each other ass, using a lot of superfluous words.

what i consider an advancement in civilization will be different from each other.
true for all of us here.

so - - - - ?

I'm not sure that all the arguments here are invalid. I mean, it really would have been a terrible thing for the human race to have remained confined to one continent on Earth, just because we evolved there. Surely spreading to cover our planet is advancement by any reasonable standard. This is similar.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

yitwail wrote:
..., on the other hand, space exploration could also divert funds from other fields of research that might have more immediate impact.

And Queen Isabella of Spain could have helped a lot of poor people with her jewels instead of donating them to Columbus, but in the long run, her contribution was well spent.

well-spent, from a western european perspective. as to the rest of the world, the value of exploration is less clear-cut. even for euro culture, it's a mixed blessing--consider the spread of emerging diseases, like AIDS, west nile virus, hanta virus, even mad cow, made possible by the process of globalization.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
yitwail wrote:
..., on the other hand, space exploration could also divert funds from other fields of research that might have more immediate impact.

And Queen Isabella of Spain could have helped a lot of poor people with her jewels instead of donating them to Columbus, but in the long run, her contribution was well spent.

well-spent, from a western european perspective. as to the rest of the world, the value of exploration is less clear-cut. even for euro culture, it's a mixed blessing--consider the spread of emerging diseases, like AIDS, west nile virus, hanta virus, even mad cow, made possible by the process of globalization.

I doubt you can construct a persuasive argument that we would be better off generally had we remained confined to Sub-Saharan Africa, and used our time productively to gather as many nuts and berries as possible to feed our hungry people.

0 Replies

Continued space exploration is vital for the advancement...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know