Value I negate and value Justice meaning fair treatment for all in society
Criterion Since Justice entails ensuring everyone is treated fairly in a society, my criterion is maximizing access to needs. Maximizing access to needs entails Increasing peoples ability to reach the needs necessary to survive
Resource DA
A. Link Liss Earth won't be resource sufficient for the growing population. Aff supported subdivision philosophy will be for the worse
Liss: Liss, Jeffery. Vice chair of ISDCs Toronto. “Why We DO -- And Must -- Go Into Space” NSS 2022.
We can’t keep subdividing Earth’s resource pie; we need to make the pie bigger. It is the promise of resources from the Moon, Mars, asteroids and the Sun that makes space such a hope for our future. World population is likely to double within 40 years and re-double shortly after that; world resources will not. In space, solar power is infinite (reducing the need to use forests and oil and coal merely for fuel, and eliminating the pollution they cause), as are asteroid metals. These unlimited resources would enable us to reduce the plundering of our planet. But to obtain these resources will require large structures in space and the rockets to get there. Learning how to build those things to obtain such space resources is a long step-by-step process. If we want to have those resources before it is too late, we have to start now.--------The ultimate purpose of going into space is to live and work there — just as the ultimate purpose of exploring the New World was colonization — and not merely to sit back on Earth and cogitate about what automated spacecraft report back. We do not send our cameras to the Grand Canyon; we go ourselves. We sent Lewis and Clark not just to describe the American West, but to learn where and how people could live there. America grew by sending out seeds in different places and then filling the spaces with trade and industry and new ideas. People have always found ways to prosper from their environments, however harsh, and we will do so in space as well. We cannot begin to live and work in space without first going there. And, it is human destiny to escape the cradle of our planet of birth.
B. Internal Links
Guillebaud The Aff decimates what we have left on the planet
Guillebaud: Guillebaud, John. Professor at University College London. “There are not enough resources to support the world’s population” ABC 2014
None of us in those days was worried specifically about climate change. As we’ve just been reminded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that environmental problem is terrifying enough, especially given the risk of runaway positive feedbacks, caused, for example, by methane release from permafrost. Even so, that is far from being the only life-threatening global problem. The UK government’s chief scientist and the last president of the Royal Society have highlighted the imminence of a ‘perfect storm’: water, food and fossil fuel scarcity. Reliable reports on the planet's health such as The United Nations' Global Environment Outlook have found water, land, plants, animals and fish stocks are all 'in inexorable decline'. Already by 2002 it was calculated that 97 per cent of all vertebrate flesh on land was human flesh plus that of our food animals (cows, pigs, sheep etc), leaving just three per cent for all wild vertebrate species on land. Not to mention the obliteration of wild life in the oceans through acidification, pollution and massive over-fishing. Regarding human numbers there is some good news: the total fertility rate or average family size of the world has halved since 1950, when it was over five, to about 2.5 (where 2.1 would be replacement level). The bad news is that despite this, the 58 highest fertility countries are projected to triple their numbers by 2100. In a majority of all countries there is also persistent population momentum created by 'bulges' of young people born in high fertility years. Therefore, the UN warns bluntly that world population, now well over seven billion 'has reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available'. The annual population increase of over 80 million equates to a city for 1.5 million people having to be built, somewhere, every week—with, inevitably, ever more greenhouse gas emissions and the continuing destruction of forests and wetlands, with their multiple habitats for the web of life on which all species depend.
Barnatt 1 Affirming leaves us with no options to fix resource scarcity
Barnatt: Barnatt, Christopher. Nottingham University Business School. “Resources From Space” ExplainingTheFuture 2021
The resource requirements of the human race continue to escalate, with the United Nations anticipating a three-fold increase in resource usage between 2010 and 2050. In response, over the past few decades there has been an increasing focus on 'sustainability' initiatives like recycling and transitioning to alternative energy sources. However, all such measures to consume less can at best only constitute a short-term solution to the resource requirements of future generations. In the long-term, we will therefore need to move Beyond Sustainability to both consume less and find more. As the resource supplies of the Earth continue to dwindle, the only place we can find fresh supplies of both energy and raw materials is out in space. This could involve the mining of the asteroids and the Moon. But, before that occurs, our most likely option for obtaining exterrestrial resources is space-based solar power.
Barnatt 2 Affirming sentences us to earth, we need to go into space, it's our destiny Barnatt: Barnatt, Christopher. Nottingham University Business School. “Resources From Space” ExplainingTheFuture 2021
All of our endeavours to harvest off-world resources are going to be complex, risky and expensive. And yet, if we don't at least try to obtain resources from space, we face an inevitable future of increasing scarcity, mass depopulation, and relentless decline. As we pursue the new industrial frontiers of space-based solar power, asteroid mining, and mining the moon, we may perhaps additionally bolster the human spirit by creating a thriving space tourism industry, and just possibly by landing the first human being on Mars. Unless we become extinct first, the destiny of human civilization has to be to evolve into space. The ideas outlined on this page, and in my accompanying "Resources from Space" videos, may therefore be just the beginning . . .
C. Impact
Maxwell Resource scarcity leads to conflicts and collapse of underdeveloped nations
Maxwell: Maxwell, John. Indiana University. “Resource Scarcity and Conflict in Underdeveloped countries” Sage Journals 2000
As time passes, renewable resource scarcities are becoming more common. There is increasing evidence that these scarcities are a causal factor in political conflict, especially in developing countries. We present a simple dynamic model of renewable resource and population interaction featuring the possibility of conflict triggered by per capita resource scarcity. In the model, conflict diverts resources away from resource harvesting, increases the death rate, and damages the resource. The two former effects may speed the return to a peaceful steady state. If conflict results in resource destruction, however, it may destabilize the system, leading it towards collapse. Conflict due to renewable resource scarcity could be cyclical, implying recurring phases of conflict. However, such conflict cannot last for ever. We use the model to examine various policy scenarios concerning population control and technical innovations in harvesting and natural resource growth. A key insight of the model is the importance of the bidirectional interplay between conflict and resource scarcity, as opposed to the unidirectional notion that resource scarcity leads to conflict. As such, the model points to the need for the use of simultaneous equation econometric models in empirical investigations of resource scarcity and conflict.
Satellite DA
A. Uniqueness
Williams Satellites are essential for earth in the status quo, and private entities supply them. We need private entities to increase the production of these important satellites
Williams: Williams, Matthew, Space writer HeroX “Is it worth it? The cost and benefits of space exploration” Interesting Engineering 2019
The most obvious benefit of the Space Age was the way it advanced humanity's knowledge of space. By putting satellites and crewed spacecraft into orbit, scientists learned a great deal about Earth's atmosphere, Earth's ecosystems, and led to the development of Global Position Satellite (GPS) navigation. The deployment of satellites also led to a revolution in communications technology. Ever since Sputnik 1 was launched to orbit in 1957, about 8,100 satellites have been deployed by forty countries for the purposes of telecommunications, television, radio broadcasting, navigation, and military operations. As of 2019, the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) estimated that were 5,074 satellites in orbit of Earth. And in the coming years, thousands more are expected as part of the growing telecom and satellite internet markets. In the latter case, these satellites will be essential to meeting the growing demands for wireless services in the developing world. Between 2005 and 2017, the number of people worldwide who had internet access went from 1 billion to over 3.5 billion - 16 to 48 of the population. Even more impressive, the number of people in developed nations to have internet access went from 8 to over 41. By the latter half of this century, internet access is expected to become universal.
B. Link CLARIFICATION: The Use of the word commercial is meant to signify a private/ non government affiliated group
Appearing on the CBS newsmagazine “60 Minutes,” just over a year ago, Gen. John Hyten, who heads U.S. Air Force Space Command, warned that “without satellites, you go back to World War II. You go back to Industrial Era warfare.” In the April edition of Aerospace America, Maryland research scholar Theresa Hitchens wrote that because civilians and the military are so dependent on commercial satellite capability, “attacks on those spacecraft could cripple the economy.” In a June 6 commentary in Space News magazine, David Logsdon, executive director of the CompTIA Space Enterprise Council, made the consequences of losing satellites more personal: “No Internet. No smartphone. No weather forecasts in the palm of your hand. Nightmarish flight delays thanks to a hobbled air traffic management system. A military that is literally fighting blind: no satellite imagery. No reliable global communications. No precision-guided anything. Civilian government becomes chaotic without satellites. Disaster relief, increasingly driven by satellite imagery and social media, returns to days when it was slower, more ponderous and saved fewer lives. Police, fire and other emergency responders go back in time. Weather forecasting becomes hit or miss. Having an understanding of the critical role satellites play in modern society is becoming more widespread. Satellites’ influence on our culture and everyday lives can be seen in the technology for growing the grapes for our wine or wheat for our bread; in bringing us our news; in selling our homes; and in a growing number of other ways that have advanced our civilization. Anyone who has tried to use a credit card at a store having computer/satellite link issues can understand. Trying to withdraw cash from an automated teller machine that has gone down brings to mind the stifling economic impact of cutting off satellite connectivity. More recently, imagining a world without reliable satellite connectivity has assumed a greater sense of reality – and urgency — because of declarations by the U.S. military and others that space has become more crowded and contested. Potential adversaries are developing threatening technology and the “Pax Americana” in space is coming to an end. Assumptions of a benign environment in which satellites are safe are history. That’s one of the reasons for the development of Intelsat’s EpicNG satellites, the second of which – IS 33e — is scheduled for launch in August. While capacity and versatility are drivers in the multiple spot beam and open architecture design of EpicNG, the satellite’s digital payload adds reliance with improved jamming and interference protection. C. Impacts
The potential gains from innovation in terms of boosting incomes, jobs, and economic growth are vast. Yet, paradoxically, developing countries do surprisingly little when it comes to adopting advanced-country experience to upgrading their products, technologies, and business processes says a new report launched by the World Bank today. The report finds that the lower level of technological adoption in developing countries is a rational response of firms to a range of constraints that they face: barriers to accumulating physical and human capital, low managerial capabilities, and weak government capacity. Managing these constraints to meet the challenges of an intensely competitive and rapidly evolving global economy requires a reconsideration of innovation policies and how we measure innovation progress say the report’s authors, Xavier Cirera and William F. Maloney. The report, The Innovation Paradox: Developing-Country Capabilities and the Unrealized Promise of Technological Catch-Up, underscores the challenges that policymakers and entrepreneurs face in realizing the potential fruits of innovation. “Understanding how to promote innovation in developing countries is more important than ever, given the new wave of digitalization and automation that is rapidly altering economies around the world,” said Jan Walliser, Vice President, Equitable Growth, Finance, and Institutions.
Because government appropriation of space is just, and private entities will have to abide by the same laws, and it is unfair to limit private entities’ usage of outer space I negate and move onto the aff
A2 Inequality
Goguichvili et al Treaties have been formulated to ensure space safety and integrity for all.
Goguichvili: Goguichvili, Sophie, American University “The Global Legal Landscape of Space: Who Writes the Rules on the Final Frontier?” Wilson Center 2021
Following the ratification of the five U.N. foundational space treaties—whether with great or little support—the international space law community transitioned to the development of voluntary consensus principles and guidelines for space operations, debris mitigation and space sustainability. In addition to the five general multilateral treaties, the U.N. oversaw the drafting and formulation of five sets of principles adopted by the General Assembly, including the Declaration of Legal Principles. Although such influential voluntary international guidelines may contain more detailed, challenging, and aspirational goals, they are non-binding.
A2 Environmental harms
Burnham Private entities are making environmentally friendly space developments Burnham: Burnham, Michael. Utah State University. “Can Space Travel Be Environmentally Friendly?” Scientific American 2009 Virgin Galactic uses a landing strip in California's Mojave Desert now, but construction crews plan to break ground next month on a state-of-the-art "spaceport" near Truth or Consequences, N.M. "Spaceport America," a $198 million project funded by the state, will feature a vertical launch pad and a horizontal runway, according to project officials. Virgin Galactic's fellow tenants will include UP Aerospace Inc. and Lockheed Martin Corp. The project's terminal and hangar facility, designed by URS Corp. and Foster + Partners, will feature solar-thermal panels. A passive cooling system will draw in hot air from the outside and chill it through a series of concrete tubes. Virgin Galactic's spacecraft were also designed with environmental sustainability in mind, Whitehorn said. Mother ship Eve's jet engines will run on kerosene initially but are also capable of running on butanol, a biofuel that can be made from algae. SpaceShipTwo's rockets will burn nitrous oxide —but only briefly—as the spaceship would require no fuel for takeoff, reentry and landing. According to Whitehorn's calculations, carbon dioxide emissions per passenger on a Virgin Galactic spaceflight would be about 60 percent of a passenger's carbon footprint on a round-trip flight between New York and London. About 70 percent of a spaceflight's CO2 emissions would come from mother ship Eve, which must carry SpaceShipTwo into the stratosphere. To lighten the load, both spacecraft are made of carbon-composite materials. Swiss adventurer Andre Piccard, a hot-air balloon enthusiast like Branson, is building an experimental aircraft of his own with such lightweight materials. Piccard aims to take his 1,500-kilogram "Solar Impulse" aircraft around the world using only the power of the sun (Greenwire, October 31, 2008). "The basic idea of lightweighting spacecraft or aircraft is going to use a lot less fuel," said Frances Arnold, a professor of biochemistry and chemical engineering at the California Institute of Technology. "The same is true of any kind of vehicle." Virgin Galactic's use of a mother ship, as opposed to a ground-based launch, will also save fuel, said Rob Anderson, a budding Cambridge University scientist. He is one of seven students planning a high-altitude rocket launch later this year. The "Cambridge University Spaceflight" team's mission is to deliver payload to space as cheaply and efficiently as possible—or for about $32,000, in this case. The team plans to send a helium balloon up 18.6 miles, at which point a rocket would blast solo to an elevation of 62.1 miles. Anderson said a balloon-based model would work best for small scientific payloads; the latex balloon will eventually pop as its helium expands. But he predicted that the day when lightweight spaceships carry tourists is not too far away. "At the speed things are going today, I suspect we'll see a lot of it," Anderson added.
A2 Capitalism
!/T Capitalism is good. Capitalism expands the economy in outer space, which allows for a larger benefit for more people, the economy is finite on earth, space opens the door to possibilities
Rhonheimer
Rhonheimer: Rhomheimer, Martin. Professor of Ethics at the University of The Holy Cross in Rome. “Capitalism is Good for the Poor – and for the Environment” Austrian Institute 2020.
Capitalism and the market economy have solved what is probably humanity’s biggest problem: the problem of mass poverty. But what is capitalism? “Capitalism” means: the productive use of private wealth for the purpose of entrepreneurial profit-seeking, free market-based exchange and competition, as well as international trade – all on the foundation of state protection of property rights, generally applicable legal rules, and legal certainty. This should be good news for the Church, which has always paid special attention to the well-being of the poor and is today also concerned about the environment, nature and, the climate. But misunderstandings and defensive reflexes predominate. Capitalism, profit-seeking and the market economy do not have a good reputation in church circles. Instead, they are blamed for today’s problems and turmoil.
He Adds:
What is important is that what made today’s mass prosperity possible – a phenomenon unprecedented in history – was not social policy or social legislation, organised trade union pressure, or corrective interventions in the capitalist economy, but rather market capitalism itself, due to its enormous potential for innovation and the ever-increasing productivity of human labour that resulted from it. Increasing prosperity and quality of life are always the result of increasing labour productivity. Only increased productivity enabled higher social standards, better working conditions, the overcoming of child labour, a higher level of education, and the emergence of human capital. This process of increasing triumph over poverty and the constantly rising living standards of the general masses is taking place on a global scale – but only where the market economy and capitalist entrepreneurship are able to spread.
Value I negate and value Justice meaning fair treatment for all in society
Criterion Since Justice entails ensuring everyone is treated fairly in capitalist society, my criterion is maximizing access to needs. Maximizing access to needs entails Increasing peoples ability to reach the needs necessary to survive
Appropriation Oxford Languages defines appropriation as the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.
Private Entities Private entities as defined by Law Insider is Private entities means individuals or organizations other than federal, state, or local personnel or agencies.
Contention 1: Resources are Running Out
Contention 1 My First contention is that resources are running low on earth, we need to go to outer space to get these resources.
Liss Earth doesn't have enough for the growing population. Aff supported subdivision will be bad
Liss: Liss, Jeffery. Vice chair of ISDCs Toronto. “Why We DO -- And Must -- Go Into Space” NSS 2022.
We can’t keep subdividing Earth’s resource pie; we need to make the pie bigger. It is the promise of resources from the Moon, Mars, asteroids and the Sun that makes space such a hope for our future. World population is likely to double within 40 years and re-double shortly after that; world resources will not. In space, solar power is infinite (reducing the need to use forests and oil and coal merely for fuel, and eliminating the pollution they cause), as are asteroid metals. These unlimited resources would enable us to reduce the plundering of our planet. But to obtain these resources will require large structures in space and the rockets to get there. Learning how to build those things to obtain such space resources is a long step-by-step process. If we want to have those resources before it is too late, we have to start now.--------The ultimate purpose of going into space is to live and work there — just as the ultimate purpose of exploring the New World was colonization — and not merely to sit back on Earth and cogitate about what automated spacecraft report back. We do not send our cameras to the Grand Canyon; we go ourselves. We sent Lewis and Clark not just to describe the American West, but to learn where and how people could live there. America grew by sending out seeds in different places and then filling the spaces with trade and industry and new ideas. People have always found ways to prosper from their environments, however harsh, and we will do so in space as well. We cannot begin to live and work in space without first going there. And, it is human destiny to escape the cradle of our planet of birth.
Guillebaud The Aff runs our resources dry
Guillebaud: Guillebaud, John. Professor at University College London. “There are not enough resources to support the world’s population” ABC 2014
None of us in those days was worried specifically about climate change. As we’ve just been reminded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that environmental problem is terrifying enough, especially given the risk of runaway positive feedbacks, caused, for example, by methane release from permafrost. Even so, that is far from being the only life-threatening global problem. The UK government’s chief scientist and the last president of the Royal Society have highlighted the imminence of a ‘perfect storm’: water, food and fossil fuel scarcity. Reliable reports on the planet's health such as The United Nations' Global Environment Outlook have found water, land, plants, animals and fish stocks are all 'in inexorable decline'. Already by 2002 it was calculated that 97 per cent of all vertebrate flesh on land was human flesh plus that of our food animals (cows, pigs, sheep etc), leaving just three per cent for all wild vertebrate species on land. Not to mention the obliteration of wild life in the oceans through acidification, pollution and massive over-fishing. Regarding human numbers there is some good news: the total fertility rate or average family size of the world has halved since 1950, when it was over five, to about 2.5 (where 2.1 would be replacement level). The bad news is that despite this, the 58 highest fertility countries are projected to triple their numbers by 2100. In a majority of all countries there is also persistent population momentum created by 'bulges' of young people born in high fertility years. Therefore, the UN warns bluntly that world population, now well over seven billion 'has reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available'. The annual population increase of over 80 million equates to a city for 1.5 million people having to be built, somewhere, every week—with, inevitably, ever more greenhouse gas emissions and the continuing destruction of forests and wetlands, with their multiple habitats for the web of life on which all species depend.
Barnatt 1 Affirming leaves us with no options to fix resource scarcity
Barnatt: Barnatt, Christopher. Nottingham University Business School. “Resources From Space” ExplainingTheFuture 2021
The resource requirements of the human race continue to escalate, with the United Nations anticipating a three-fold increase in resource usage between 2010 and 2050. In response, over the past few decades there has been an increasing focus on 'sustainability' initiatives like recycling and transitioning to alternative energy sources. However, all such measures to consume less can at best only constitute a short-term solution to the resource requirements of future generations. In the long-term, we will therefore need to move Beyond Sustainability to both consume less and find more. As the resource supplies of the Earth continue to dwindle, the only place we can find fresh supplies of both energy and raw materials is out in space. This could involve the mining of the asteroids and the Moon. But, before that occurs, our most likely option for obtaining exterrestrial resources is space-based solar power.
Barnatt 2 Appropriation solves, we need to go into space, it's our destiny Barnatt: Barnatt, Christopher. Nottingham University Business School. “Resources From Space” ExplainingTheFuture 2021
All of our endeavours to harvest off-world resources are going to be complex, risky and expensive. And yet, if we don't at least try to obtain resources from space, we face an inevitable future of increasing scarcity, mass depopulation, and relentless decline. As we pursue the new industrial frontiers of space-based solar power, asteroid mining, and mining the moon, we may perhaps additionally bolster the human spirit by creating a thriving space tourism industry, and just possibly by landing the first human being on Mars. Unless we become extinct first, the destiny of human civilization has to be to evolve into space. The ideas outlined on this page, and in my accompanying "Resources from Space" videos, may therefore be just the beginning . . .
Major Impact
Maxwell If we don't get resources soon, countries will collapse
Maxwell: Maxwell, John. Indiana University. “Resource Scarcity and Conflict in Underdeveloped countries” Sage Journals 2000
As time passes, renewable resource scarcities are becoming more common. There is increasing evidence that these scarcities are a causal factor in political conflict, especially in developing countries. We present a simple dynamic model of renewable resource and population interaction featuring the possibility of conflict triggered by per capita resource scarcity. In the model, conflict diverts resources away from resource harvesting, increases the death rate, and damages the resource. The two former effects may speed the return to a peaceful steady state. If conflict results in resource destruction, however, it may destabilize the system, leading it towards collapse. Conflict due to renewable resource scarcity could be cyclical, implying recurring phases of conflict. However, such conflict cannot last for ever. We use the model to examine various policy scenarios concerning population control and technical innovations in harvesting and natural resource growth. A key insight of the model is the importance of the bidirectional interplay between conflict and resource scarcity, as opposed to the unidirectional notion that resource scarcity leads to conflict. As such, the model points to the need for the use of simultaneous equation econometric models in empirical investigations of resource scarcity and conflict.
Contention 2: Technology and Research
Contention 2 My second contention is that we can get so many benefits from appropriating, and investing more time into Outer Space
Williams Satellites are essential for earth, and private entities supply them. We need private entities to increase the production of these important satellites
Williams: Williams, Matthew, Space writer HeroX “Is it worth it? The cost and benefits of space exploration” Interesting Engineering 2019
The most obvious benefit of the Space Age was the way it advanced humanity's knowledge of space. By putting satellites and crewed spacecraft into orbit, scientists learned a great deal about Earth's atmosphere, Earth's ecosystems, and led to the development of Global Position Satellite (GPS) navigation. The deployment of satellites also led to a revolution in communications technology. Ever since Sputnik 1 was launched to orbit in 1957, about 8,100 satellites have been deployed by forty countries for the purposes of telecommunications, television, radio broadcasting, navigation, and military operations. As of 2019, the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) estimated that were 5,074 satellites in orbit of Earth. And in the coming years, thousands more are expected as part of the growing telecom and satellite internet markets. In the latter case, these satellites will be essential to meeting the growing demands for wireless services in the developing world. Between 2005 and 2017, the number of people worldwide who had internet access went from 1 billion to over 3.5 billion - 16 to 48 of the population. Even more impressive, the number of people in developed nations to have internet access went from 8 to over 41. By the latter half of this century, internet access is expected to become universal.
Plait Space will eventually save the human race, it's important to put time and research into it now Plait: Plait, Phil. University of Virginia. “The Value of Space Exploration”Universe today 2008
First, the question of why spend money there when we have problems here is a false dichotomy. We have enough money to work on problems here and in space! We just don’t seem to choose to, which is maddening. $12 million an hour is spent in Iraq; the US government chose to do that instead of fix many problems that could have been solved with that money. NASA is less than 1 of the US budget, so it’s best to pick your fights wisely here. Second, space exploration is necessary. We learn so much from it! Early attempts discovered the van Allen radiation belts (with America’s first satellite!). Later satellites found the ozone hole, letting us know we were damaging our ecosystem. Weather prediction via satellites is another obvious example, as well as global communication, TV, GPS, and much more. If you want to narrow it down to exploring other planets and the Universe around us, again we can give the practical answer that the more we learn about our space environment, the more we learn about the Earth itself. Examining the Sun led us to understand that its magnetic field connects with ours, sometimes with disastrous results… yet we can fortify ourselves against the danger, should we so choose. Space exploration may yet save us from an asteroid impact, too. Spreading our seed to other worlds may eventually save the human race. But I’m with Fraser. These are all good reasons, and there are many, many more. But it is the very nature of humans to explore! We could do nothing in our daily lives but look no farther than the ends of our noses. We could labor away in a gray, listless, dull world. Or we can look up, look out to the skies, see what wonders are there, marvel at exploding stars, majestic galaxies, ringed worlds, and perhaps planets like our own. That gives us beauty and joy in our world, and adds a depth and dimension that we might otherwise miss. Space exploration is cheap. Not exploring is always very, very expensive.
Fernholz The appropriation of Outer Space by private entities is how we’ve done everything in space
Fernholz: Fernholz Tim, Economy and politics, NASA Has Always Needed Private Companies to go to the moon, Quartz 2021 JG
“We got to the Moon without private contractors, if I’m not mistaken,” US rep. Jamaal Bowman said yesterday, leading me to collapse in a frothing heap. NASA administrator Bill Nelson had a calmer response: “In the Apollo program, Mr. Congressman, we got to the Moon with American corporations.” A dozen major US companies worked closely with the US space agency to build the vehicles that took the first humans to the lunar surface. NASA scientists and engineers planned the mission and the technology needed to accomplish it, then worked with the most advanced tech firms of the day to produce rockets, capsules, landers, suits, and rovers. There’s no doubt Apollo was a big government program, but the private sector was essential. Why does this history matter? In the last decade, the US space program has made major leaps by handing more work directly to private firms. Rather than designing a new space vehicle to carry cargo or astronauts to the International Space Station and hiring someone to build it, NASA effectively told its needs to the marketplace, and accepted proposals from companies that would not only design the spacecraft, but operate them as a service. This choice launched SpaceX and a new era of private sector space in the US. The logic of this kind of partnership rests on several factors: These are tasks that have been done before, paving the way for new organizations to take them on more easily. Private firms are now willing to invest their own capital alongside the government, saving public money. They can take more risk, and use more advanced program management techniques than government-run programs. And they seem to result in more accountability for taxpayers when things go wrong: NASA shoulders the extra cost for Boeing’s long-delayed and over-budget SLS rocket, a traditional program; the same company is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to re-test its Starliner spacecraft, bought through a public-private partnership
Because government appropriation of space is just, and private entities will have to abide by the same laws, and it is unfair to limit private entities’ usage of outer space I negate and move onto the aff
A2 Utrata1
Dvorsky It is a waste of time to fear colonization. It will never happen
Dvorsky: Dvorsky, George, Gizmodo Astronomy specialist. “Humans Will Never Colonize Mars” Gizmodo 2021
Yet despite these and a plethora of other issues, there’s this popular idea floating around that we’ll soon be able to set up colonies on Mars with ease. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is projecting colonies on Mars as early as the 2050s, while astrobiologist Lewis Darnell, a professor at the University of Westminster, has offered a more modest estimate, saying it’ll be about 50 to 100 years before “substantial numbers of people have moved to Mars to live in self-sustaining towns.” The United Arab Emirates is aiming to build a Martian city of 600,000 occupants by 2117, in one of the more ambitious visions of the future. Sadly, this is literally science fiction. While there’s no doubt in my mind that humans will eventually visit Mars and even build a base or two, the notion that we’ll soon set up colonies inhabited by hundreds or thousands of people is pure nonsense, and an unmitigated denial of the tremendous challenges posed by such a prospect.
A2 Utrata2
Goguichvili et al Treaties have been formulated to ensure space safety and integrity for all.
Goguichvili: Goguichvili, Sophie, American University “The Global Legal Landscape of Space: Who Writes the Rules on the Final Frontier?” Wilson Center 2021
Following the ratification of the five U.N. foundational space treaties—whether with great or little support—the international space law community transitioned to the development of voluntary consensus principles and guidelines for space operations, debris mitigation and space sustainability. In addition to the five general multilateral treaties, the U.N. oversaw the drafting and formulation of five sets of principles adopted by the General Assembly, including the Declaration of Legal Principles. Although such influential voluntary international guidelines may contain more detailed, challenging, and aspirational goals, they are non-binding.
A2 Utrata3
Henderson and Salter We can promote more discoveries with a profit motive.
Henderson and Salter: Henderson, David, Senior member of the American Institute for Economic Research “For-Profit Companies Must be the Backbone of the New Space Age” AIER 2020. Salter, Alexander, Rawls College “For-Profit Companies Must be the Backbone of the New Space Age” SpaceX’s successful launch of two NASA astronauts to the International Space Station in May and the astronauts’ safe return in August mark the dawn of a new space age. This shows that the private sector can and must play an increasingly prominent role in propelling mankind to the stars. We need to reconsider the relationship between the public and private sectors in space exploration and development. Many observers contend that creating the scientific and engineering knowledge required for significant spacefaring activities is a public good. Once the knowledge is created, it is available for everyone to use. Also, it is hard to prevent anyone from using that knowledge, even if they don’t pay for the privilege. Because of this, goes the argument, governments have an advantage over markets. But that reasoning betrays a misunderstanding of public goods. First, the public good argument suggests that, at most, the public sector should finance space exploration and development. But it doesn’t imply that the public sector should produce those things. Second, the arguments conflate knowledge with technology. The rocket equation is a public good. But the actual rocket is not. For-profit companies have a cost advantage at carrying out many of the tasks previously expected of governments. The private sector is cost-conscious in a way the public sector will never be. The profit motive is a powerful mechanism for getting things done cheaply. In our space missions, we should redraw the boundary between government and private. At most, the government should set goals and conduct oversight. The private sector should execute. That way, we can get a robust and dynamic private sector that can bring humanity back to the moon, to Mars, and beyond, while respecting public international law. Space remains the final frontier. Just as with the terrestrial frontier, private enterprise should be the driving force for exploration, development, and settlement. Existing international law requires governments to treat outer space as the “province of all mankind.” But given the massive strides made by for-profit space companies, the public sector should focus on refereeing and peacekeeping. The right combination of private entrepreneurialism and public vision will help us achieve things in space our grandparents only dreamed of. Our manifest destiny waits among the stars.
A2 McCan
Rhonheimer
Rhonheimer: Rhomheimer, Martin. Professor of Ethics at the University of The Holy Cross in Rome. “Capitalism is Good for the Poor – and for the Environment” Austrian Institute 2020.
Capitalism and the market economy have solved what is probably humanity’s biggest problem: the problem of mass poverty. But what is capitalism? “Capitalism” means: the productive use of private wealth for the purpose of entrepreneurial profit-seeking, free market-based exchange and competition, as well as international trade – all on the foundation of state protection of property rights, generally applicable legal rules, and legal certainty. This should be good news for the Church, which has always paid special attention to the well-being of the poor and is today also concerned about the environment, nature and, the climate. But misunderstandings and defensive reflexes predominate. Capitalism, profit-seeking and the market economy do not have a good reputation in church circles. Instead, they are blamed for today’s problems and turmoil.
He Adds:
What is important is that what made today’s mass prosperity possible – a phenomenon unprecedented in history – was not social policy or social legislation, organised trade union pressure, or corrective interventions in the capitalist economy, but rather market capitalism itself, due to its enormous potential for innovation and the ever-increasing productivity of human labour that resulted from it. Increasing prosperity and quality of life are always the result of increasing labour productivity. Only increased productivity enabled higher social standards, better working conditions, the overcoming of child labour, a higher level of education, and the emergence of human capital. This process of increasing triumph over poverty and the constantly rising living standards of the general masses is taking place on a global scale – but only where the market economy and capitalist entrepreneurship are able to spread.
2/20/22
Outer Space Neg
Tournament: Malcom A Bump Memorial an NYCFL Event | Round: 2 | Opponent: Bronx Science AS | Judge: Ashish Mittal Framework
Value I negate and value Justice meaning fair treatment for all in society
Criterion Since Justice entails ensuring everyone is treated fairly in capitalist society, my criterion is maximizing access to needs. Maximizing access to needs entails Increasing peoples ability to reach the needs necessary to survive
Contention 1: Appropriation and Exploration in space is needed
Contention 1 My first contention is that with the rising issues on earth, space research and exploration is a necessity for future generations when earth may be uninhabitable. Since governments are obligated to focus on the needs of their own people. The Private sector is the perfect chance for us to gain space research and fix our own problems on earth.
Williams Satellites are essential for earth, and private entities supply them. We need private entities to increase the production of these important satellites
Williams: Williams, Matthew, Space writer HeroX “Is it worth it? The cost and benefits of space exploration” Interesting Engineering 2019
The most obvious benefit of the Space Age was the way it advanced humanity's knowledge of space. By putting satellites and crewed spacecraft into orbit, scientists learned a great deal about Earth's atmosphere, Earth's ecosystems, and led to the development of Global Position Satellite (GPS) navigation. The deployment of satellites also led to a revolution in communications technology. Ever since Sputnik 1 was launched to orbit in 1957, about 8,100 satellites have been deployed by forty countries for the purposes of telecommunications, television, radio broadcasting, navigation, and military operations. As of 2019, the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) estimated that were 5,074 satellites in orbit of Earth. And in the coming years, thousands more are expected as part of the growing telecom and satellite internet markets. In the latter case, these satellites will be essential to meeting the growing demands for wireless services in the developing world. Between 2005 and 2017, the number of people worldwide who had internet access went from 1 billion to over 3.5 billion - 16 to 48 of the population. Even more impressive, the number of people in developed nations to have internet access went from 8 to over 41. By the latter half of this century, internet access is expected to become universal.
Impact The impact is that the actions of private entities in space are what caused society to be so advanced. Privately owned satellites being produced in space are leading to faster internet connection, and an increased global communication. The appropriation of outer space in general is not mutually exclusive. The teaming of private entities and government will allow for the most reliable use of space, with sufficient regulations.
Plait Space will eventually save the human race, it's important to put time and research into it now Plait: Plait, Phil. University of Virginia. “The Value of Space Exploration”Universe today 2008
First, the question of why spend money there when we have problems here is a false dichotomy. We have enough money to work on problems here and in space! We just don’t seem to choose to, which is maddening. $12 million an hour is spent in Iraq; the US government chose to do that instead of fix many problems that could have been solved with that money. NASA is less than 1 of the US budget, so it’s best to pick your fights wisely here. Second, space exploration is necessary. We learn so much from it! Early attempts discovered the van Allen radiation belts (with America’s first satellite!). Later satellites found the ozone hole, letting us know we were damaging our ecosystem. Weather prediction via satellites is another obvious example, as well as global communication, TV, GPS, and much more. If you want to narrow it down to exploring other planets and the Universe around us, again we can give the practical answer that the more we learn about our space environment, the more we learn about the Earth itself. Examining the Sun led us to understand that its magnetic field connects with ours, sometimes with disastrous results… yet we can fortify ourselves against the danger, should we so choose. Space exploration may yet save us from an asteroid impact, too. Spreading our seed to other worlds may eventually save the human race. But I’m with Fraser. These are all good reasons, and there are many, many more. But it is the very nature of humans to explore! We could do nothing in our daily lives but look no farther than the ends of our noses. We could labor away in a gray, listless, dull world. Or we can look up, look out to the skies, see what wonders are there, marvel at exploding stars, majestic galaxies, ringed worlds, and perhaps planets like our own. That gives us beauty and joy in our world, and adds a depth and dimension that we might otherwise miss. Space exploration is cheap. Not exploring is always very, very expensive.
Impact The impact is that in the past we have learned so much about space through exploration, and the potential societal cost of not exploring space outweighs any concern in modern day. Space appropriation is a given now, with talks of space hotels, and mines being made; it already exists. It's justified, because it's helping save the world, and helping us learn what it takes to improve the planet
Contention 2: Space Will Still Be Regulated Contention 2 My second contention is appropriation does not mean lawlessness. If private entities and governments work together, laws in space will still be as stable as they are on earth, If not more so. People will have a healthy respect for space, and not allow anarchy to occur.
UN Office for Outer Space affairs Space exploration is well regulated, making it safe to use private entities in space
UN: United Nations excerpt from the committee of peaceful uses of outer space 1959 from the 2021 session
The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) was set up by the General Assembly in 1959 to govern the exploration and use of space for the benefit of all humanity: for peace, security and development. The Committee was tasked with reviewing international cooperation in peaceful uses of outer space, studying space-related activities that could be undertaken by the United Nations, encouraging space research programmes, and studying legal problems arising from the exploration of outer space. The Committee was instrumental in the creation of the five treaties and five principles of outer space. International cooperation in space exploration and the use of space technology applications to meet global development goals are discussed in the Committee every year. Owing to rapid advances in space technology, the space agenda is constantly evolving. The Committee therefore provides a unique platform at the global level to monitor and discuss these developments.
Impact The impact is that there are laws in place to ensure space is not abused, but that it can be appropriated. Just because you're a private entity does not mean that you are above the government, or do not have to abide by the rules. Lawlessness is not a possibility with the UN in agreement on space usage.
Fernholz The appropriation of Outer Space by private entities is how we’ve done everything in space
Fernholz: Fernholz Tim, Economy and politics, NASA Has Always Needed Private Companies to go to the moon, Quartz 2021 JG
“We got to the Moon without private contractors, if I’m not mistaken,” US rep. Jamaal Bowman said yesterday, leading me to collapse in a frothing heap. NASA administrator Bill Nelson had a calmer response: “In the Apollo program, Mr. Congressman, we got to the Moon with American corporations.” A dozen major US companies worked closely with the US space agency to build the vehicles that took the first humans to the lunar surface. NASA scientists and engineers planned the mission and the technology needed to accomplish it, then worked with the most advanced tech firms of the day to produce rockets, capsules, landers, suits, and rovers. There’s no doubt Apollo was a big government program, but the private sector was essential. Why does this history matter? In the last decade, the US space program has made major leaps by handing more work directly to private firms. Rather than designing a new space vehicle to carry cargo or astronauts to the International Space Station and hiring someone to build it, NASA effectively told its needs to the marketplace, and accepted proposals from companies that would not only design the spacecraft, but operate them as a service. This choice launched SpaceX and a new era of private sector space in the US. The logic of this kind of partnership rests on several factors: These are tasks that have been done before, paving the way for new organizations to take them on more easily. Private firms are now willing to invest their own capital alongside the government, saving public money. They can take more risk, and use more advanced program management techniques than government-run programs. And they seem to result in more accountability for taxpayers when things go wrong: NASA shoulders the extra cost for Boeing’s long-delayed and over-budget SLS rocket, a traditional program; the same company is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to re-test its Starliner spacecraft, bought through a public-private partnership
Because government appropriation of space is just, and private entities will have to abide by the same laws, and it is unfair to limit private entities’ usage of outer space I negate and move onto the aff
1/24/22
Outer Space Second Neg Case
Tournament: Columbia University | Round: 1 | Opponent: Bergen County Academies AK | Judge: Andrea Reier Framework
Value I negate and value Justice meaning fair treatment for all in society
Criterion Since Justice entails ensuring everyone is treated fairly in capitalist society, my criterion is maximizing access to needs. Maximizing access to needs entails Increasing peoples ability to reach the needs necessary to survive
Contention 1: Appropriation is a necessity
Contention 1 My first contention is that with the rising issues on earth, space research and exploration is a necessity for future generations when earth may be uninhabitable. Since governments are obligated to focus on the needs of their own people. The Private sector is the perfect chance for us to gain space research and fix our own problems on earth.
Williams Satellites are essential for earth, and private entities supply them. We need private entities to increase the production of these important satellites
Williams: Williams, Matthew, Space writer HeroX “Is it worth it? The cost and benefits of space exploration” Interesting Engineering 2019
The most obvious benefit of the Space Age was the way it advanced humanity's knowledge of space. By putting satellites and crewed spacecraft into orbit, scientists learned a great deal about Earth's atmosphere, Earth's ecosystems, and led to the development of Global Position Satellite (GPS) navigation. The deployment of satellites also led to a revolution in communications technology. Ever since Sputnik 1 was launched to orbit in 1957, about 8,100 satellites have been deployed by forty countries for the purposes of telecommunications, television, radio broadcasting, navigation, and military operations. As of 2019, the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) estimated that were 5,074 satellites in orbit of Earth. And in the coming years, thousands more are expected as part of the growing telecom and satellite internet markets. In the latter case, these satellites will be essential to meeting the growing demands for wireless services in the developing world. Between 2005 and 2017, the number of people worldwide who had internet access went from 1 billion to over 3.5 billion - 16 to 48 of the population. Even more impressive, the number of people in developed nations to have internet access went from 8 to over 41. By the latter half of this century, internet access is expected to become universal.
Plait Space will eventually save the human race, it's important to put time and research into it now Plait: Plait, Phil. University of Virginia. “The Value of Space Exploration”Universe today 2008
First, the question of why spend money there when we have problems here is a false dichotomy. We have enough money to work on problems here and in space! We just don’t seem to choose to, which is maddening. $12 million an hour is spent in Iraq; the US government chose to do that instead of fix many problems that could have been solved with that money. NASA is less than 1 of the US budget, so it’s best to pick your fights wisely here. Second, space exploration is necessary. We learn so much from it! Early attempts discovered the van Allen radiation belts (with America’s first satellite!). Later satellites found the ozone hole, letting us know we were damaging our ecosystem. Weather prediction via satellites is another obvious example, as well as global communication, TV, GPS, and much more. If you want to narrow it down to exploring other planets and the Universe around us, again we can give the practical answer that the more we learn about our space environment, the more we learn about the Earth itself. Examining the Sun led us to understand that its magnetic field connects with ours, sometimes with disastrous results… yet we can fortify ourselves against the danger, should we so choose. Space exploration may yet save us from an asteroid impact, too. Spreading our seed to other worlds may eventually save the human race. But I’m with Fraser. These are all good reasons, and there are many, many more. But it is the very nature of humans to explore! We could do nothing in our daily lives but look no farther than the ends of our noses. We could labor away in a gray, listless, dull world. Or we can look up, look out to the skies, see what wonders are there, marvel at exploding stars, majestic galaxies, ringed worlds, and perhaps planets like our own. That gives us beauty and joy in our world, and adds a depth and dimension that we might otherwise miss. Space exploration is cheap. Not exploring is always very, very expensive.
Fernholz The appropriation of Outer Space by private entities is how we’ve done everything in space
Fernholz: Fernholz Tim, Economy and politics, NASA Has Always Needed Private Companies to go to the moon, Quartz 2021 JG
“We got to the Moon without private contractors, if I’m not mistaken,” US rep. Jamaal Bowman said yesterday, leading me to collapse in a frothing heap. NASA administrator Bill Nelson had a calmer response: “In the Apollo program, Mr. Congressman, we got to the Moon with American corporations.” A dozen major US companies worked closely with the US space agency to build the vehicles that took the first humans to the lunar surface. NASA scientists and engineers planned the mission and the technology needed to accomplish it, then worked with the most advanced tech firms of the day to produce rockets, capsules, landers, suits, and rovers. There’s no doubt Apollo was a big government program, but the private sector was essential. Why does this history matter? In the last decade, the US space program has made major leaps by handing more work directly to private firms. Rather than designing a new space vehicle to carry cargo or astronauts to the International Space Station and hiring someone to build it, NASA effectively told its needs to the marketplace, and accepted proposals from companies that would not only design the spacecraft, but operate them as a service. This choice launched SpaceX and a new era of private sector space in the US. The logic of this kind of partnership rests on several factors: These are tasks that have been done before, paving the way for new organizations to take them on more easily. Private firms are now willing to invest their own capital alongside the government, saving public money. They can take more risk, and use more advanced program management techniques than government-run programs. And they seem to result in more accountability for taxpayers when things go wrong: NASA shoulders the extra cost for Boeing’s long-delayed and over-budget SLS rocket, a traditional program; the same company is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to re-test its Starliner spacecraft, bought through a public-private partnership
Resource DA
A. Link Liss Earth won't be resource sufficient for the growing population. Aff supported subdivision philosophy will be for the worse
Liss: Liss, Jeffery. Vice chair of ISDCs Toronto. “Why We DO -- And Must -- Go Into Space” NSS 2022.
We can’t keep subdividing Earth’s resource pie; we need to make the pie bigger. It is the promise of resources from the Moon, Mars, asteroids and the Sun that makes space such a hope for our future. World population is likely to double within 40 years and re-double shortly after that; world resources will not. In space, solar power is infinite (reducing the need to use forests and oil and coal merely for fuel, and eliminating the pollution they cause), as are asteroid metals. These unlimited resources would enable us to reduce the plundering of our planet. But to obtain these resources will require large structures in space and the rockets to get there. Learning how to build those things to obtain such space resources is a long step-by-step process. If we want to have those resources before it is too late, we have to start now.--------The ultimate purpose of going into space is to live and work there — just as the ultimate purpose of exploring the New World was colonization — and not merely to sit back on Earth and cogitate about what automated spacecraft report back. We do not send our cameras to the Grand Canyon; we go ourselves. We sent Lewis and Clark not just to describe the American West, but to learn where and how people could live there. America grew by sending out seeds in different places and then filling the spaces with trade and industry and new ideas. People have always found ways to prosper from their environments, however harsh, and we will do so in space as well. We cannot begin to live and work in space without first going there. And, it is human destiny to escape the cradle of our planet of birth.
B. Internal Links
Guillebaud The Aff decimates what we have left on the planet
Guillebaud: Guillebaud, John. Professor at University College London. “There are not enough resources to support the world’s population” ABC 2014
None of us in those days was worried specifically about climate change. As we’ve just been reminded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that environmental problem is terrifying enough, especially given the risk of runaway positive feedbacks, caused, for example, by methane release from permafrost. Even so, that is far from being the only life-threatening global problem. The UK government’s chief scientist and the last president of the Royal Society have highlighted the imminence of a ‘perfect storm’: water, food and fossil fuel scarcity. Reliable reports on the planet's health such as The United Nations' Global Environment Outlook have found water, land, plants, animals and fish stocks are all 'in inexorable decline'. Already by 2002 it was calculated that 97 per cent of all vertebrate flesh on land was human flesh plus that of our food animals (cows, pigs, sheep etc), leaving just three per cent for all wild vertebrate species on land. Not to mention the obliteration of wild life in the oceans through acidification, pollution and massive over-fishing. Regarding human numbers there is some good news: the total fertility rate or average family size of the world has halved since 1950, when it was over five, to about 2.5 (where 2.1 would be replacement level). The bad news is that despite this, the 58 highest fertility countries are projected to triple their numbers by 2100. In a majority of all countries there is also persistent population momentum created by 'bulges' of young people born in high fertility years. Therefore, the UN warns bluntly that world population, now well over seven billion 'has reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available'. The annual population increase of over 80 million equates to a city for 1.5 million people having to be built, somewhere, every week—with, inevitably, ever more greenhouse gas emissions and the continuing destruction of forests and wetlands, with their multiple habitats for the web of life on which all species depend.
Barnatt 1 Affirming leaves us with no options to fix resource scarcity
Barnatt: Barnatt, Christopher. Nottingham University Business School. “Resources From Space” ExplainingTheFuture 2021
The resource requirements of the human race continue to escalate, with the United Nations anticipating a three-fold increase in resource usage between 2010 and 2050. In response, over the past few decades there has been an increasing focus on 'sustainability' initiatives like recycling and transitioning to alternative energy sources. However, all such measures to consume less can at best only constitute a short-term solution to the resource requirements of future generations. In the long-term, we will therefore need to move Beyond Sustainability to both consume less and find more. As the resource supplies of the Earth continue to dwindle, the only place we can find fresh supplies of both energy and raw materials is out in space. This could involve the mining of the asteroids and the Moon. But, before that occurs, our most likely option for obtaining exterrestrial resources is space-based solar power.
Barnatt 2 Affirming sentences us to earth, we need to go into space, it's our destiny Barnatt: Barnatt, Christopher. Nottingham University Business School. “Resources From Space” ExplainingTheFuture 2021
All of our endeavours to harvest off-world resources are going to be complex, risky and expensive. And yet, if we don't at least try to obtain resources from space, we face an inevitable future of increasing scarcity, mass depopulation, and relentless decline. As we pursue the new industrial frontiers of space-based solar power, asteroid mining, and mining the moon, we may perhaps additionally bolster the human spirit by creating a thriving space tourism industry, and just possibly by landing the first human being on Mars. Unless we become extinct first, the destiny of human civilization has to be to evolve into space. The ideas outlined on this page, and in my accompanying "Resources from Space" videos, may therefore be just the beginning . . .
C. Impact
Maxwell Resource scarcity leads to conflicts and collapse of underdeveloped nations
Maxwell: Maxwell, John. Indiana University. “Resource Scarcity and Conflict in Underdeveloped countries” Sage Journals 2000
As time passes, renewable resource scarcities are becoming more common. There is increasing evidence that these scarcities are a causal factor in political conflict, especially in developing countries. We present a simple dynamic model of renewable resource and population interaction featuring the possibility of conflict triggered by per capita resource scarcity. In the model, conflict diverts resources away from resource harvesting, increases the death rate, and damages the resource. The two former effects may speed the return to a peaceful steady state. If conflict results in resource destruction, however, it may destabilize the system, leading it towards collapse. Conflict due to renewable resource scarcity could be cyclical, implying recurring phases of conflict. However, such conflict cannot last for ever. We use the model to examine various policy scenarios concerning population control and technical innovations in harvesting and natural resource growth. A key insight of the model is the importance of the bidirectional interplay between conflict and resource scarcity, as opposed to the unidirectional notion that resource scarcity leads to conflict. As such, the model points to the need for the use of simultaneous equation econometric models in empirical investigations of resource scarcity and conflict.
Because government appropriation of space is just, and private entities will have to abide by the same laws, and it is unfair to limit private entities’ usage of outer space I negate and move onto the aff
1/28/22
Outer Space Sixth Neg
Tournament: Woodward | Round: Quarters | Opponent: American Heritage Broward JW | Judge: David McGinnis, Nick Smith, Jonathan Waters Framework
Value I negate and value Justice meaning fair treatment for all in society
Criterion Since Justice entails ensuring everyone is treated fairly in a society, my criterion is maximizing access to needs. Maximizing access to needs entails Increasing peoples ability to reach the needs necessary to survive
Resource DA
A. Link Liss Earth won't be resource sufficient for the growing population. Aff supported subdivision philosophy will be for the worse
Liss: Liss, Jeffery. Vice chair of ISDCs Toronto. “Why We DO -- And Must -- Go Into Space” NSS 2022.
We can’t keep subdividing Earth’s resource pie; we need to make the pie bigger. It is the promise of resources from the Moon, Mars, asteroids and the Sun that makes space such a hope for our future. World population is likely to double within 40 years and re-double shortly after that; world resources will not. In space, solar power is infinite (reducing the need to use forests and oil and coal merely for fuel, and eliminating the pollution they cause), as are asteroid metals. These unlimited resources would enable us to reduce the plundering of our planet. But to obtain these resources will require large structures in space and the rockets to get there. Learning how to build those things to obtain such space resources is a long step-by-step process. If we want to have those resources before it is too late, we have to start now.--------The ultimate purpose of going into space is to live and work there — just as the ultimate purpose of exploring the New World was colonization — and not merely to sit back on Earth and cogitate about what automated spacecraft report back. We do not send our cameras to the Grand Canyon; we go ourselves. We sent Lewis and Clark not just to describe the American West, but to learn where and how people could live there. America grew by sending out seeds in different places and then filling the spaces with trade and industry and new ideas. People have always found ways to prosper from their environments, however harsh, and we will do so in space as well. We cannot begin to live and work in space without first going there. And, it is human destiny to escape the cradle of our planet of birth.
B. Internal Links
Guillebaud The Aff decimates what we have left on the planet
Guillebaud: Guillebaud, John. Professor at University College London. “There are not enough resources to support the world’s population” ABC 2014
None of us in those days was worried specifically about climate change. As we’ve just been reminded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that environmental problem is terrifying enough, especially given the risk of runaway positive feedbacks, caused, for example, by methane release from permafrost. Even so, that is far from being the only life-threatening global problem. The UK government’s chief scientist and the last president of the Royal Society have highlighted the imminence of a ‘perfect storm’: water, food and fossil fuel scarcity. Reliable reports on the planet's health such as The United Nations' Global Environment Outlook have found water, land, plants, animals and fish stocks are all 'in inexorable decline'. Already by 2002 it was calculated that 97 per cent of all vertebrate flesh on land was human flesh plus that of our food animals (cows, pigs, sheep etc), leaving just three per cent for all wild vertebrate species on land. Not to mention the obliteration of wild life in the oceans through acidification, pollution and massive over-fishing. Regarding human numbers there is some good news: the total fertility rate or average family size of the world has halved since 1950, when it was over five, to about 2.5 (where 2.1 would be replacement level). The bad news is that despite this, the 58 highest fertility countries are projected to triple their numbers by 2100. In a majority of all countries there is also persistent population momentum created by 'bulges' of young people born in high fertility years. Therefore, the UN warns bluntly that world population, now well over seven billion 'has reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available'. The annual population increase of over 80 million equates to a city for 1.5 million people having to be built, somewhere, every week—with, inevitably, ever more greenhouse gas emissions and the continuing destruction of forests and wetlands, with their multiple habitats for the web of life on which all species depend.
Barnatt 1 Affirming leaves us with no options to fix resource scarcity
Barnatt: Barnatt, Christopher. Nottingham University Business School. “Resources From Space” ExplainingTheFuture 2021
The resource requirements of the human race continue to escalate, with the United Nations anticipating a three-fold increase in resource usage between 2010 and 2050. In response, over the past few decades there has been an increasing focus on 'sustainability' initiatives like recycling and transitioning to alternative energy sources. However, all such measures to consume less can at best only constitute a short-term solution to the resource requirements of future generations. In the long-term, we will therefore need to move Beyond Sustainability to both consume less and find more. As the resource supplies of the Earth continue to dwindle, the only place we can find fresh supplies of both energy and raw materials is out in space. This could involve the mining of the asteroids and the Moon. But, before that occurs, our most likely option for obtaining exterrestrial resources is space-based solar power.
Barnatt 2 Affirming sentences us to earth, we need to go into space, it's our destiny Barnatt: Barnatt, Christopher. Nottingham University Business School. “Resources From Space” ExplainingTheFuture 2021
All of our endeavours to harvest off-world resources are going to be complex, risky and expensive. And yet, if we don't at least try to obtain resources from space, we face an inevitable future of increasing scarcity, mass depopulation, and relentless decline. As we pursue the new industrial frontiers of space-based solar power, asteroid mining, and mining the moon, we may perhaps additionally bolster the human spirit by creating a thriving space tourism industry, and just possibly by landing the first human being on Mars. Unless we become extinct first, the destiny of human civilization has to be to evolve into space. The ideas outlined on this page, and in my accompanying "Resources from Space" videos, may therefore be just the beginning . . .
C. Impact
Maxwell Resource scarcity leads to conflicts and collapse of underdeveloped nations
Maxwell: Maxwell, John. Indiana University. “Resource Scarcity and Conflict in Underdeveloped countries” Sage Journals 2000
As time passes, renewable resource scarcities are becoming more common. There is increasing evidence that these scarcities are a causal factor in political conflict, especially in developing countries. We present a simple dynamic model of renewable resource and population interaction featuring the possibility of conflict triggered by per capita resource scarcity. In the model, conflict diverts resources away from resource harvesting, increases the death rate, and damages the resource. The two former effects may speed the return to a peaceful steady state. If conflict results in resource destruction, however, it may destabilize the system, leading it towards collapse. Conflict due to renewable resource scarcity could be cyclical, implying recurring phases of conflict. However, such conflict cannot last for ever. We use the model to examine various policy scenarios concerning population control and technical innovations in harvesting and natural resource growth. A key insight of the model is the importance of the bidirectional interplay between conflict and resource scarcity, as opposed to the unidirectional notion that resource scarcity leads to conflict. As such, the model points to the need for the use of simultaneous equation econometric models in empirical investigations of resource scarcity and conflict.
Second Off iLaw DA A. Link
Zvobgo and Loken 1 The aff is rooted in INHERENTLY RACIST tenants of international law– their race-neutral extinction scenarios are an “all lives matter” approach that ignores ILAW’s racism. Zvobgo and Loken 1: Zvobgo, Kelebogile Founder and Director, International Justice Lab at William and Mary and Meredith Loken Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. “Why Race Matters in International Relations.” Foreign Policy, June 19, 2020. CH
Race is not a perspective on international relations; it is a central organizing feature of world politics. Anti-Japanese racism guided and sustained U.S. engagement in World War II, and broader anti-Asian sentiment influenced the development and structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. During the Cold War, racism and anti-communism were inextricably linked in the containment strategy that defined Washington’s approach to Africa, Asia, Central America, the Caribbean, and South America. And today race shapes threat perception and responses to violent extremism, inside and outside the “war on terror.” Yet mainstream international relations (IR) scholarship denies race as essential to understanding the world, to the cost of the field’s integrity. Take the “big three” IR paradigms: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. These dominant frames for understanding global politics are built on raced and racist intellectual foundations that limit the field’s ability to answer important questions about international security and organization. Core concepts, like anarchy and hierarchy, are raced: They are rooted in discourses that center and favor Europe and the West. These concepts implicitly and explicitly pit “developed” against “undeveloped,” “modern” against “primitive,” “civilized” against “uncivilized.” And their use is racist: These invented binaries are used to explain subjugation and exploitation around the globe. While realism and liberalism were built on Eurocentrism and used to justify white imperialism, this fact is not widely acknowledged in the field. For instance, according to neorealists, there exists a “balance of power” between and among “great powers.” Most of these great powers are, not incidentally, white-majority states, and they sit atop the hierarchy, with small and notably less-white powers organized below them. In a similar vein, raced hierarchies and conceptions of control ground the concept of cooperation in neoliberal thought: Major powers own the proverbial table, set the chairs, and arrange the place settings.
B. Impacts
Zvobgo and Loken 2 Justifies racism, always be enforced in an unjust way against countries of color. Zvobgo and Loken 2: Zvobgo, Kelebogile Founder and Director, International Justice Lab at William and Mary and Meredith Loken Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. “Why Race Matters in International Relations.” Foreign Policy, June 19, 2020. CH
Between 1945 and 1993, among the five major IR journals of the period—International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Review of International Studies, and World Politics—only one published an article with the word “race” in the title. Another four articles included “minorities” and 13 included “ethnicity.” Since then, mainstream IR has neglected race in theorizing, in historical explanation, and in prescription, and shuttled race (and gender) to the side as “other perspectives.” When IR scholars do engage with race, it is often in discussions of outwardly raced issues such as colonialism. Yet one cannot comprehend world politics while ignoring race and racism. Textbooks that neglect historical and modern slavery when explaining development and globalization obscure the realities of state-building and deny the harms committed in the process. Similarly, when scholarship fails to call attention to the role that race plays in Western nations’ use of international law as a pretext for military intervention, it provides cover for the modern-day equivalent of “civilizing missions.” Likewise, studies of trade and dispute settlement almost always overlook modern arbitration’s deep roots in the transatlantic slave trade. This history is often lost in analyses of wins and losses in negotiations. Race and the racism of historical statecraft are inextricable from the modern study and practice of international relations. They are also not artefacts: Race continues to shape international and domestic threat perceptions and consequent foreign policy; international responses to immigrants and refugees; and access to health and environmental stability. Because mainstream IR does not take race or racism seriously, it also does not take diversity and inclusion in the profession seriously. In the United States, which is the largest producer of IR scholarship, only 8 percent of scholars identify as black or Latino, compared to 12 percent of scholars in comparative politics and 14 percent in U.S. politics.
They add:
Constructivism, which rounds out the “big three” approaches, is perhaps best positioned to tackle race and racism. Constructivists reject the as-given condition of anarchy and maintain that anarchy, security, and other concerns are socially constructed based on shared ideas, histories, and experiences. Yet with few notable exceptions, constructivists rarely acknowledge how race shapes what is shared. Despite the dominance of the “big three” in the modern study of IR, many of the arguments they advance, such as the balance of power, are not actually supported by evidence outside of modern Europe. Consider the democratic peace theory. The theory makes two key propositions: that democracies are less likely to go to war than are nondemocracies, and that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other. The historical record shows that democracies have actually not been less likely to fight wars—if you include their colonial conquests. Meanwhile, in regions such as the Middle East and North Africa, democratizing states have experienced more internal conflicts than their less-democratic peers. Yet leaders in the West have invoked democratic peace theory to justify invading and occupying less-democratic, and notably less-white, countries. This is a key element of IR’s racial exclusion: The state system that IR seeks to explain arises from the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War and established European principles of statehood and sovereignty. Far from 17th-century relics, these principles are enshrined in the United Nations Charter—the foundation for global governance since 1945. But non-European nations did not voluntarily adopt European understandings of statehood and sovereignty, as IR scholars often mythologize. Instead, Europe, justified by Westphalia, divided the world between the modern, “civilized” states and conquered those which they did not think belonged in the international system. IR scholar Sankaran Krishna has argued that, because IR privileges theorizing over historical description and analysis, the field enables this kind of whitewashing. Western concepts are prioritized at the expense of their applicability in the world. Krishna called this “a systematic politics of forgetting, a willful amnesia, on the question of race.” Importantly, IR has not always ignored race. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, foundational texts invoked race as the linchpin holding together colonial administration and war. Belief in white people’s biological and sociological supremacy offered a tidy dualism between the civilized and the savage that justified the former’s murderous exploitation of the latter. Paul Samuel Reinsch, a founder of modern IR and foreign policy, christened the 20th century as the “age of national imperialism.” He concluded that states “endeavor to increase their resources … through the absorption or exploitation of undeveloped regions and inferior races.” Yet, he assured readers that this was “not inconsistent with respect for … other nationalities” because states avoid exerting control over “highly civilized nations.”
TURNS AND OUTWEIGHS THE AFF – they worsen security threats to non-White states – all of 20th century history proves it.
Because government appropriation of space is just, and private entities will have to abide by the same laws, and it is unfair to limit private entities’ usage of outer space I negate and move onto the aff
A2 Inequality
Goguichvili et al Treaties have been formulated to ensure space safety and integrity for all.
Goguichvili: Goguichvili, Sophie, American University “The Global Legal Landscape of Space: Who Writes the Rules on the Final Frontier?” Wilson Center 2021
Following the ratification of the five U.N. foundational space treaties—whether with great or little support—the international space law community transitioned to the development of voluntary consensus principles and guidelines for space operations, debris mitigation and space sustainability. In addition to the five general multilateral treaties, the U.N. oversaw the drafting and formulation of five sets of principles adopted by the General Assembly, including the Declaration of Legal Principles. Although such influential voluntary international guidelines may contain more detailed, challenging, and aspirational goals, they are non-binding.
A2 Environmental harms
Burnham Private entities are making environmentally friendly space developments Burnham: Burnham, Michael. Utah State University. “Can Space Travel Be Environmentally Friendly?” Scientific American 2009 Virgin Galactic uses a landing strip in California's Mojave Desert now, but construction crews plan to break ground next month on a state-of-the-art "spaceport" near Truth or Consequences, N.M. "Spaceport America," a $198 million project funded by the state, will feature a vertical launch pad and a horizontal runway, according to project officials. Virgin Galactic's fellow tenants will include UP Aerospace Inc. and Lockheed Martin Corp. The project's terminal and hangar facility, designed by URS Corp. and Foster + Partners, will feature solar-thermal panels. A passive cooling system will draw in hot air from the outside and chill it through a series of concrete tubes. Virgin Galactic's spacecraft were also designed with environmental sustainability in mind, Whitehorn said. Mother ship Eve's jet engines will run on kerosene initially but are also capable of running on butanol, a biofuel that can be made from algae. SpaceShipTwo's rockets will burn nitrous oxide —but only briefly—as the spaceship would require no fuel for takeoff, reentry and landing. According to Whitehorn's calculations, carbon dioxide emissions per passenger on a Virgin Galactic spaceflight would be about 60 percent of a passenger's carbon footprint on a round-trip flight between New York and London. About 70 percent of a spaceflight's CO2 emissions would come from mother ship Eve, which must carry SpaceShipTwo into the stratosphere. To lighten the load, both spacecraft are made of carbon-composite materials. Swiss adventurer Andre Piccard, a hot-air balloon enthusiast like Branson, is building an experimental aircraft of his own with such lightweight materials. Piccard aims to take his 1,500-kilogram "Solar Impulse" aircraft around the world using only the power of the sun (Greenwire, October 31, 2008). "The basic idea of lightweighting spacecraft or aircraft is going to use a lot less fuel," said Frances Arnold, a professor of biochemistry and chemical engineering at the California Institute of Technology. "The same is true of any kind of vehicle." Virgin Galactic's use of a mother ship, as opposed to a ground-based launch, will also save fuel, said Rob Anderson, a budding Cambridge University scientist. He is one of seven students planning a high-altitude rocket launch later this year. The "Cambridge University Spaceflight" team's mission is to deliver payload to space as cheaply and efficiently as possible—or for about $32,000, in this case. The team plans to send a helium balloon up 18.6 miles, at which point a rocket would blast solo to an elevation of 62.1 miles. Anderson said a balloon-based model would work best for small scientific payloads; the latex balloon will eventually pop as its helium expands. But he predicted that the day when lightweight spaceships carry tourists is not too far away. "At the speed things are going today, I suspect we'll see a lot of it," Anderson added.
A2 Capitalism
!/T Capitalism is good. Capitalism expands the economy in outer space, which allows for a larger benefit for more people, the economy is finite on earth, space opens the door to possibilities
Rhonheimer
Rhonheimer: Rhomheimer, Martin. Professor of Ethics at the University of The Holy Cross in Rome. “Capitalism is Good for the Poor – and for the Environment” Austrian Institute 2020.
Capitalism and the market economy have solved what is probably humanity’s biggest problem: the problem of mass poverty. But what is capitalism? “Capitalism” means: the productive use of private wealth for the purpose of entrepreneurial profit-seeking, free market-based exchange and competition, as well as international trade – all on the foundation of state protection of property rights, generally applicable legal rules, and legal certainty. This should be good news for the Church, which has always paid special attention to the well-being of the poor and is today also concerned about the environment, nature and, the climate. But misunderstandings and defensive reflexes predominate. Capitalism, profit-seeking and the market economy do not have a good reputation in church circles. Instead, they are blamed for today’s problems and turmoil.
He Adds:
What is important is that what made today’s mass prosperity possible – a phenomenon unprecedented in history – was not social policy or social legislation, organised trade union pressure, or corrective interventions in the capitalist economy, but rather market capitalism itself, due to its enormous potential for innovation and the ever-increasing productivity of human labour that resulted from it. Increasing prosperity and quality of life are always the result of increasing labour productivity. Only increased productivity enabled higher social standards, better working conditions, the overcoming of child labour, a higher level of education, and the emergence of human capital. This process of increasing triumph over poverty and the constantly rising living standards of the general masses is taking place on a global scale – but only where the market economy and capitalist entrepreneurship are able to spread.
Value I negate and value Justice meaning fair treatment for all in society
Criterion Since Justice entails ensuring everyone is treated fairly in capitalist society, my criterion is maximizing access to needs. Maximizing access to needs entails Increasing peoples ability to reach the needs necessary to survive
Resource DA
A. Link Liss Earth won't be resource sufficient for the growing population. Aff supported subdivision philosophy will be for the worse
Liss: Liss, Jeffery. Vice chair of ISDCs Toronto. “Why We DO -- And Must -- Go Into Space” NSS 2022.
We can’t keep subdividing Earth’s resource pie; we need to make the pie bigger. It is the promise of resources from the Moon, Mars, asteroids and the Sun that makes space such a hope for our future. World population is likely to double within 40 years and re-double shortly after that; world resources will not. In space, solar power is infinite (reducing the need to use forests and oil and coal merely for fuel, and eliminating the pollution they cause), as are asteroid metals. These unlimited resources would enable us to reduce the plundering of our planet. But to obtain these resources will require large structures in space and the rockets to get there. Learning how to build those things to obtain such space resources is a long step-by-step process. If we want to have those resources before it is too late, we have to start now.--------The ultimate purpose of going into space is to live and work there — just as the ultimate purpose of exploring the New World was colonization — and not merely to sit back on Earth and cogitate about what automated spacecraft report back. We do not send our cameras to the Grand Canyon; we go ourselves. We sent Lewis and Clark not just to describe the American West, but to learn where and how people could live there. America grew by sending out seeds in different places and then filling the spaces with trade and industry and new ideas. People have always found ways to prosper from their environments, however harsh, and we will do so in space as well. We cannot begin to live and work in space without first going there. And, it is human destiny to escape the cradle of our planet of birth.
B. Internal Links
Guillebaud The Aff decimates what we have left on the planet
Guillebaud: Guillebaud, John. Professor at University College London. “There are not enough resources to support the world’s population” ABC 2014
None of us in those days was worried specifically about climate change. As we’ve just been reminded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that environmental problem is terrifying enough, especially given the risk of runaway positive feedbacks, caused, for example, by methane release from permafrost. Even so, that is far from being the only life-threatening global problem. The UK government’s chief scientist and the last president of the Royal Society have highlighted the imminence of a ‘perfect storm’: water, food and fossil fuel scarcity. Reliable reports on the planet's health such as The United Nations' Global Environment Outlook have found water, land, plants, animals and fish stocks are all 'in inexorable decline'. Already by 2002 it was calculated that 97 per cent of all vertebrate flesh on land was human flesh plus that of our food animals (cows, pigs, sheep etc), leaving just three per cent for all wild vertebrate species on land. Not to mention the obliteration of wild life in the oceans through acidification, pollution and massive over-fishing. Regarding human numbers there is some good news: the total fertility rate or average family size of the world has halved since 1950, when it was over five, to about 2.5 (where 2.1 would be replacement level). The bad news is that despite this, the 58 highest fertility countries are projected to triple their numbers by 2100. In a majority of all countries there is also persistent population momentum created by 'bulges' of young people born in high fertility years. Therefore, the UN warns bluntly that world population, now well over seven billion 'has reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available'. The annual population increase of over 80 million equates to a city for 1.5 million people having to be built, somewhere, every week—with, inevitably, ever more greenhouse gas emissions and the continuing destruction of forests and wetlands, with their multiple habitats for the web of life on which all species depend.
Barnatt 1 Affirming leaves us with no options to fix resource scarcity
Barnatt: Barnatt, Christopher. Nottingham University Business School. “Resources From Space” ExplainingTheFuture 2021
The resource requirements of the human race continue to escalate, with the United Nations anticipating a three-fold increase in resource usage between 2010 and 2050. In response, over the past few decades there has been an increasing focus on 'sustainability' initiatives like recycling and transitioning to alternative energy sources. However, all such measures to consume less can at best only constitute a short-term solution to the resource requirements of future generations. In the long-term, we will therefore need to move Beyond Sustainability to both consume less and find more. As the resource supplies of the Earth continue to dwindle, the only place we can find fresh supplies of both energy and raw materials is out in space. This could involve the mining of the asteroids and the Moon. But, before that occurs, our most likely option for obtaining exterrestrial resources is space-based solar power.
Barnatt 2 Affirming sentences us to earth, we need to go into space, it's our destiny Barnatt: Barnatt, Christopher. Nottingham University Business School. “Resources From Space” ExplainingTheFuture 2021
All of our endeavours to harvest off-world resources are going to be complex, risky and expensive. And yet, if we don't at least try to obtain resources from space, we face an inevitable future of increasing scarcity, mass depopulation, and relentless decline. As we pursue the new industrial frontiers of space-based solar power, asteroid mining, and mining the moon, we may perhaps additionally bolster the human spirit by creating a thriving space tourism industry, and just possibly by landing the first human being on Mars. Unless we become extinct first, the destiny of human civilization has to be to evolve into space. The ideas outlined on this page, and in my accompanying "Resources from Space" videos, may therefore be just the beginning . . .
C. Impact
Maxwell Resource scarcity leads to conflicts and collapse of underdeveloped nations
Maxwell: Maxwell, John. Indiana University. “Resource Scarcity and Conflict in Underdeveloped countries” Sage Journals 2000
As time passes, renewable resource scarcities are becoming more common. There is increasing evidence that these scarcities are a causal factor in political conflict, especially in developing countries. We present a simple dynamic model of renewable resource and population interaction featuring the possibility of conflict triggered by per capita resource scarcity. In the model, conflict diverts resources away from resource harvesting, increases the death rate, and damages the resource. The two former effects may speed the return to a peaceful steady state. If conflict results in resource destruction, however, it may destabilize the system, leading it towards collapse. Conflict due to renewable resource scarcity could be cyclical, implying recurring phases of conflict. However, such conflict cannot last for ever. We use the model to examine various policy scenarios concerning population control and technical innovations in harvesting and natural resource growth. A key insight of the model is the importance of the bidirectional interplay between conflict and resource scarcity, as opposed to the unidirectional notion that resource scarcity leads to conflict. As such, the model points to the need for the use of simultaneous equation econometric models in empirical investigations of resource scarcity and conflict.
Case
Williams Satellites are essential for earth, and private entities supply them. We need private entities to increase the production of these important satellites
Williams: Williams, Matthew, Space writer HeroX “Is it worth it? The cost and benefits of space exploration” Interesting Engineering 2019
The most obvious benefit of the Space Age was the way it advanced humanity's knowledge of space. By putting satellites and crewed spacecraft into orbit, scientists learned a great deal about Earth's atmosphere, Earth's ecosystems, and led to the development of Global Position Satellite (GPS) navigation. The deployment of satellites also led to a revolution in communications technology. Ever since Sputnik 1 was launched to orbit in 1957, about 8,100 satellites have been deployed by forty countries for the purposes of telecommunications, television, radio broadcasting, navigation, and military operations. As of 2019, the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA) estimated that were 5,074 satellites in orbit of Earth. And in the coming years, thousands more are expected as part of the growing telecom and satellite internet markets. In the latter case, these satellites will be essential to meeting the growing demands for wireless services in the developing world. Between 2005 and 2017, the number of people worldwide who had internet access went from 1 billion to over 3.5 billion - 16 to 48 of the population. Even more impressive, the number of people in developed nations to have internet access went from 8 to over 41. By the latter half of this century, internet access is expected to become universal.
Plait Space will eventually save the human race, it's important to put time and research into it now Plait: Plait, Phil. University of Virginia. “The Value of Space Exploration”Universe today 2008
First, the question of why spend money there when we have problems here is a false dichotomy. We have enough money to work on problems here and in space! We just don’t seem to choose to, which is maddening. $12 million an hour is spent in Iraq; the US government chose to do that instead of fix many problems that could have been solved with that money. NASA is less than 1 of the US budget, so it’s best to pick your fights wisely here. Second, space exploration is necessary. We learn so much from it! Early attempts discovered the van Allen radiation belts (with America’s first satellite!). Later satellites found the ozone hole, letting us know we were damaging our ecosystem. Weather prediction via satellites is another obvious example, as well as global communication, TV, GPS, and much more. If you want to narrow it down to exploring other planets and the Universe around us, again we can give the practical answer that the more we learn about our space environment, the more we learn about the Earth itself. Examining the Sun led us to understand that its magnetic field connects with ours, sometimes with disastrous results… yet we can fortify ourselves against the danger, should we so choose. Space exploration may yet save us from an asteroid impact, too. Spreading our seed to other worlds may eventually save the human race. But I’m with Fraser. These are all good reasons, and there are many, many more. But it is the very nature of humans to explore! We could do nothing in our daily lives but look no farther than the ends of our noses. We could labor away in a gray, listless, dull world. Or we can look up, look out to the skies, see what wonders are there, marvel at exploding stars, majestic galaxies, ringed worlds, and perhaps planets like our own. That gives us beauty and joy in our world, and adds a depth and dimension that we might otherwise miss. Space exploration is cheap. Not exploring is always very, very expensive.
Fernholz The appropriation of Outer Space by private entities is how we’ve done everything in space
Fernholz: Fernholz Tim, Economy and politics, NASA Has Always Needed Private Companies to go to the moon, Quartz 2021 JG
“We got to the Moon without private contractors, if I’m not mistaken,” US rep. Jamaal Bowman said yesterday, leading me to collapse in a frothing heap. NASA administrator Bill Nelson had a calmer response: “In the Apollo program, Mr. Congressman, we got to the Moon with American corporations.” A dozen major US companies worked closely with the US space agency to build the vehicles that took the first humans to the lunar surface. NASA scientists and engineers planned the mission and the technology needed to accomplish it, then worked with the most advanced tech firms of the day to produce rockets, capsules, landers, suits, and rovers. There’s no doubt Apollo was a big government program, but the private sector was essential. Why does this history matter? In the last decade, the US space program has made major leaps by handing more work directly to private firms. Rather than designing a new space vehicle to carry cargo or astronauts to the International Space Station and hiring someone to build it, NASA effectively told its needs to the marketplace, and accepted proposals from companies that would not only design the spacecraft, but operate them as a service. This choice launched SpaceX and a new era of private sector space in the US. The logic of this kind of partnership rests on several factors: These are tasks that have been done before, paving the way for new organizations to take them on more easily. Private firms are now willing to invest their own capital alongside the government, saving public money. They can take more risk, and use more advanced program management techniques than government-run programs. And they seem to result in more accountability for taxpayers when things go wrong: NASA shoulders the extra cost for Boeing’s long-delayed and over-budget SLS rocket, a traditional program; the same company is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to re-test its Starliner spacecraft, bought through a public-private partnership
Because government appropriation of space is just, and private entities will have to abide by the same laws, and it is unfair to limit private entities’ usage of outer space I negate and move onto the aff