4. Philosophy:
Knowing the impermanence of the Earth, do humans have a moral obligation to find and explore habitable worlds outside our own? Should this exploration come at the expense of imminent affairs (creating food, energy, social programs right now on Earth)? If not, then what should be the limit--how much should we be spending on space exploration? If humanity should abandon space exploration, discuss how we should be using resources such as money, scientists' work, etc. that are currently being devoted to space exploration?
Earth has served as a good home for humans for many years, and will most likely continue to be one for many more. However, the Earth can not sustain us forever. This is especially true since the human population started growing very quickly starting a few
…show more content…
Even though colonization of another planet or even star system is very risky and expensive, it should be attempted in the future in order to greatly increase our chances of survival as a race.
While exploration and colonization of other planets is important, it should not come at the expense of current issues. If the problems we face now are ignored for the possibility of colonizing another planet, the situation could be worsened. Even today there are many things that can be done to improve the lives of many people in third world countries, such as providing food, clean water, and medicine. It would not be right to ignore the problems of the poor just so the rich countries can leave Earth behind and colonize other planets. Another reason for putting current issues first is it could improve the success rate of a colonization mission in the future. It would be very difficult for countries to work together on a spacecraft while they are fighting amongst themselves.
Working together could not only increase the chances of success, but bring the
Earth will outlive us all and when the human species eventually dies out, Earth will still be here fixing itself from the damage we have caused, yet continuing with the natural disasters. I do admit, we are polluting the planet, but there will always be some sort of life on Earth even if humans are not. People should not be too worried about destroying the planet because it will heal itself. If people begin to pollute it too much, Earth will kill us off. Roderick Nash, along with many other people, underestimates the power of the Earth. It can take care of itself just like how it has been for over a billion years.
As time passes, our population continues to increase and multiply; yet, on the other hand, our planet’s resources continue to decrease and deplete. As our population flourishes, human beings also increase their demands and clamor for the Earth’s natural products, yet are unable to sacrifice their surplus of the said resources. Garret Hardin’s work highlighted the reality that humans fail to remember that the Earth is finite and its resources are limited. Hardin’s article revealed that people are unable to fathom that we indeed have a moral obligation to our community and our natural habitat — that we are not our planet’s conquerors but its protectors. We fail to acknowledge and accept that we only have one Earth and that we must protect and treasure it at all costs. Despite all our attempts at annihilating the planet, the Earth will still be unrelenting — it will still continue to be present and powerful. Human beings must recognize that we need this planet more than it needs us and if we persist on being egocentric and covetous, in the end it is us who will
A wise man once stated, “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man 's needs, but not every man 's greed.” -Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi was one of the wise people that realized we need to take better care of our home planet Earth. Another wise person who also thought the Earth should be taken better care of was Rachel Carlson. In 1962 Carlson wrote “The Obligation to Endure” in hopes to educate people on this matter. In this essay I am going to explain how Carlson’s ideas have changed since she wrote her book in 1962.
The word race is defined at its core as a competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc. to see which is the fastest in covering a set course. Well, interestingly enough, a race of a different kind occurred between two countries from the years 1957 to 1969. The competition was unclear, and the opponents were on two entirely different continents, not something as simplistic as two horses. The United States and the United Soviet States of Russia both set out as arch rivals in the “Space Race,” a quest for dominance beyond the known Planet Earth. Ironically enough, just as communism was spreading to all parts of the world, the United States always sought to squash this form of government, despite somewhat dire consequences. Now, with
As a human race I could not with a good conscious say that we have all done that is possible to preserve our planet. I believe it partially should be blamed on our lack of knowledge on how we are actually affecting it. If you ask the common college student results prove that most would say they care to a certain extent. However, they also know that they are just one person in this world. Therefore, I believe this would be an excellent article for The Shorthorn. Geologist might say that it is too late to turn back from what has already been done. Simply buying a Prius or turning off the air conditioning won’t save our Earth. The fact of the matter is that “this civilization is already dead.” Now the key
With all the problems we have on earth and how much we don’t know about our own planet we shouldn’t be colonizing others. We may have the science but we don’t have the funds. We also have tons of willing people but not enough physically and mentally able to colonize a planet. Children are starving all around the world, People are homeless, and wars are starting. Humankind needs to achieve some sort of world peace before trying to explore space. Also, humans will end up destroying life if we try to colonize an
Space exploration by the United States has been going on since the early nineteen hundreds. The impacts of space exploration can vary from being the first country ever to land on the moon, to having satellites orbit our planet. Despite the achievements space exploration has given to this country, there are many issues—with money, extraterrestrial threats, and the lack of a reason for funding—at hand that should be addressed to make decisions about the future of space exploration in the United States.
To this, I would explain how wealthy nations have a quite high standard of living, access to clean water, food, great opportunity, etc. Many individuals who make up the world’s poor are not in a place where they can change their circumstance. This could be due to health conditions due to the lack of human rights, lack of housing, lack of opportunity, corrupt government, environmental factors, where you are born, etc. Many of these factors are not issues that would concern wealthier nations and are presented to them outside of their control. So if only some parts of the world are faced with these challenges, why should they be further punished for it? They certainly did not ask to be born into such conditions. The world’s poor have a clear disadvantage that does not allow them to live the same quality of life as others which is unjust. Everyone should be granted equal
Populating another planet could help solve the population crisis and climate change simultaneously. Though, it seems we are not at that point currently, which is exactly why it is imperative that the government increase funding for space exploration. Now, even if inter-galactic habitation isn’t possible, space research helps us protect ourselves from asteroids and other threats, and could also be used to find other planetary resources. Nonetheless, it seems space research is of utmost significance if we want to continue living as a species.
We are supposed to be good stewards of this earth while we are still living on it. God gave us this planet to inhabit and have dominion over everything on and in it. That means that we are responsible for keeping it clean, for protecting it from harm or depletion and we have to preserve and replenish the earth.
Although there are many people that are trying to help with stopping poverty, but it is impossible to stop without the help of the rich countries, because if we need to fight poverty, we have to fight with as much as possible many we can get, and there are not too many countries that can support this need. Additionally, what we learned that poverty is getting worse than it was, millions of children are leaving on trash and dying from starvation. So people need to stop spending their money on items that they don't need and starting helping to stop poverty, and maybe someday there will be no poverty anymore in the world. People must help not only through media so people can see them and take bride, no, they need to help form their
When my mother saw beggars standing on the intersection asking for help, my mom would try to help them by giving them the money, but my father would argue that you should not help because this would only encourage them to rely on other people’s help. My father says they should helped by the government, instate of helped by individuals. It is not our responsibility to take care of them. I disagree with both of them because they do not look at or think about the problem closely enough. I think people are not only facing problems with wealth, but diseases, and war. These are also problems that many people in many other countries also face. If we work together, we may be able to help each other and make this world better. In my opinion, there are several solutions that poor countries and wealthy countries working together could implement that would benefit both.
From the beginning of time, the earth has provided its inhabitants with everything needed to sustain life at its most basic level. For instance, the ratio of land to fresh water as well as Earth’s natural cycles provided enough resources for animals to survive. Unfortunately, as the human population grew, the previously abundant natural resources started to become limited. In fact, engineers have recently been tasked with discovering new methods of harnessing energy, harvesting food, and collecting fresh water because the population is quickly depleting traditional techniques. Not only is the sheer number of people on Earth using up all of its natural resources, but humans’ modern desires are furthering the destruction of Earth. In developed
...he present century and for sure will be greater in the century we are approaching. More rational use of resources, more effective remedy of pollution and more scientific family planning will surely change the pessimism to optimism in out beautiful world. To conclude, all nations, rich or poor, have great responsibility to challenge the problems that confront our world. Indeed it is a healthy sign that nations meet and discuss policies and strategies, but the most important element in the whole process is the implementation of what has been agreed upon. In order for earth to support us, we have to support it first.
In recent discussion about helping the poor, one controversial issue has been whether to help or not to help. On one hand, some say that helping the poor is very simple and doesn’t take much. From this point of view, it is seen as selfish to not help the poor. On the other hand, however, others argue that by helping others you are in fact hurting yourself at the same time. In the words of Garrett Hardin, one of this view’s main proponents, “prosperity will only be satisfied by lifeboat ethics.” According to this view, we are not morally obligated to help other countries. In sum, then, the issue is whether to help poorer countries or not.