Head to Head: Moon Colonization

Sumeet and Violetta duke it out over issues of galactic importance.

Sumeet Khanna & Violetta Nikolskaya

Mcmaster Debating Society

S: Think what you may of Newt Gingrich, but he sure knows how to be radical. ‘Let’s colonize the Moon!’ Okay. I want to first look at the practical benefits of a purely scientific colony. If we place astronaut-scientists on the Moon, build them a base, and allow them to take observations and operate technology specifically made for the Moon, a host of scientific avenues open up in terms of space discovery. Many point to the ample source of materials available on the Moon that we can use for the construction or fueling of a spacecraft. A Lunar base could more easily launch rockets to Mars due to the Moon’s lower gravity. Sending a human to Mars has been an aspiration for quite some time now; if a Lunar landing marked human progress in the 20th century, a Mars landing could certainly mark it for the 21st century. There are other benefits to be had as well. We could use a Lunar base for an observatory; high frequency telescopes wouldn’t be hindered by diffraction due to the lack of a sizable atmosphere. The list goes on, but I’ll pass it over to Violetta.
V: Of course, Sumeet would present the most captivating argument to open up his case. However it falls short on certain areas. Firstly, the resources that the Earth is truly in need of do not reside on the Moon. Resources like helium, which is used to cool down an MRI machine, are found in space but not in sediment. Secondly, the Mars exploration missions are coming to a close: the ExoMars program, a joint effort between NASA and the European Space Agency, is near collapse due to the withdrawal of NASA’s support. Lastly, a mission to Mars from the Moon is not a logical step. Descending onto and coming from the Moon would be a poor use of fuel. Currently the world’s finances are not in a position to fund specific space exploration programs that will not conclusively provide us with the resources needed in the immediate future. The resources that the Earth needs are helium and other simple resources that can easily be found not too far into space. The funding that would be pooled into this project will not be transparent, as are few things under NASA’s classified jurisdictions, and will not benefit us at this moment in time.

S: Well, Vio, the moon’s soil is actually rich in helium-3, highly sought on Earth for nuclear fusion. And the moon is vital for us to get to Mars, as many scientists see it as a fuelling station for spacecraft; it may also help to get some data on long-term human health on the Moon before we go to Mars. As for space agencies, I need only point you to Virgin Galactic and the now booming commercial space industry. But I want to extend the reach of this proposal now. I think there’s a case to be made for generally colonizing the Moon. Politicians and scientists alike have a moral imperative to prepare for end-of-Earth scenarios. Asteroids pass-us by all of the time. Earth is over-populating, and resources are dwindling. A lot of countries still have nuclear weapons. Given these variables, a Moon colony would not only allow humankind to hedge against these risks, but would also be a natural step in the evolution of humankind. The preservation of our species, I would argue, is an ultimate good, and every measure possible needs to be taken to ensure our survival.

V: How did we end up in a position where we are conceptualizing ‘end-of-the-world’ scenarios? We ended up in this position on our own accord due to mass consumerism, tactless globalization, a disregard for living within our means and a disrespect of the planetary natural processes. For example, the citizens in the UK throw away around 30 per cent of their groceries due to excess consumerism. Clearly there is an issue with the way that people on Earth understand the resources we have and the amount of waste we produce. We use resources improperly. Until we understand how to conserve energy and resources, we should not be able to branch out and destroy more resourceful areas. That is why we have natural wildlife and rain forest sanctuaries; we are attempting to save what we have left. Furthermore, on a more economist stance, exporting materials to the Earth would be incredibly problematic due to the cost of transportation. Issues like solar wind, fuel and human resources will cause the price of these resources to increase drastically, some estimates say. Before we ask ourselves ‘where can we go for more resources?’, we must answer the question of ‘how can we survive on less?’

S: How can we survive on less? By learning, innovating, moving forward and not sticking ourselves on one planet. Vio’s right to list off our global tendency to waste, but even if we magically reverse our habits and become ultra-sustainable as a population, resources will run out. Further, imagine what we could learn from living on the Moon; imagine what innovation, what energy-saving, what sustainable practices we would learn from this adventure? Space exploration is most certainly our next evolutionary next step. If Vio wants to save the environment, down the road, that may involve moving people and industry to space, which is a reality we have to accept. Finally, though, on a more theoretical note, I think we have a moral imperative to spread the life and beauty of human civilization throughout the universe - a universe that we usually characterize as cold and barren and frightening. So let’s colonize the Moon, and let us prove to ourselves once again that we are capable of taking another giant leap for humankind.

V: Moral imperative? I could understand and engage with your arguments until this point. The human civilization has stripped the very foundation of anything it inhabits. We would not be inhabiting or colonizing the Moon to do anything but, once again, strip it of all of its essential resources and minerals. How is that in any way beautiful or moral? If we run out of resources, it will have been on our own accord and an issue that we must come to terms with and address. Furthermore, we must recycle our resources because we still have retained a large portion of our minerals.Funding a project to gain resources that will inevitably only become accessible to the rich is a true form of supporting a dynasty. Funding a project with money that could be used to build infrastructure and environmentally sustainable projects is a true form of supporting a simplistic and problematic endeavour. How about we try to fix the problems we’ve started before we go on to create bigger problems we have no right to create in the first place?