Hey guys, I need to start a debate on the topic "Is going to mars more logical than addressing global poverty".
Can you guys judge my speech?
It's in the pic.
It's not too long, so pretty please?
You need to get into specifics about the whys its good, scientific research etc. Mention the potential for big discoveries.
I think it is fucking stupid to go to mars, its too far away and the fact that 40% of the world live in abject poverty should warrant a rethink of ridiculousness.
>>16857201
The speech as it is right now it's like 3 minutes long, I can still put 2 minutes on it, like 260 words.
Big discoveries you mean minerals, or something like alien life?
>>16857192
I think it's trash :(
you say doubt so often that it evokes doubt.
a lot of your sentences have awkward structural problems.
on top of that, you waste half a paragraph on farming. it's tangential at best.
finally, you conclude your speech by talking about "the benefits" which you think you talked about but didn't. the benefits you did mention are moot in the context and just open you up for getting pushed into a corner you can't get out of.
it's shite, sorry.
Opening--"the" presence?
As mentioned previously, details. You are using cliches in awkward ways--Neil Armstrong's quote spread through a paragraph? What would convince you? Why have humans felt exploring outside earth (and far regions of earth) is so important when our neighbors are starving? There are reasons.
A good rule--read your speech aloud and see where you get tongue tied and what trips you up. That would hopefully have caught your error in the first sentence.
>>16857206
>>16857209
Oh wow I didn't think it was so bad :(
Any more feedback you guys can think of will be appreciated. I will address the one's I have right now
>>16857192
I personally would go another route
1) you can't save everyone because not everyone wants, or is ready to be saved - there is a reason why poverty exists
2) before we save others we should save ourselves
alternatively:
1) ending poverty is a quixotean, or even sysiphusian task
2) going to mars isn't.
as it stands I kinda see what your underlying point is, but you don't communicate it well. without a concrete point your whole speech is just hot air
While I'm working on a new version can you guys think of arguments against it? Just drop it here, anything that cross your mind
One other thing is that there are two people of my team speaking after me.
I'm supposed to be a "prime minister" sort of thing that opens the discussiong and lists points in our platform that will be addressed in more detail by my colleagues.
I'd add bits about how migrating to a different planet will alow mankind to sustain it's standard of living without ecological disasters being as problematic. The gains of moving to another planet is exponential on a larger scale than defeating poverty. Meaning that if we defeat poverty now, we will be more productive. Same with Mars. Just not as much perhaps. Hard to tell how hard it is to solve these problems. But the Mars effect will last. And as you rightly mention the technology required for Mars travel is highly beneficial to mankind. The craft either needs some kind of stasis or rather extreme energy efficiency even just for food. The radiation the craft gives away has to be compensated by either solar power or stored energy like food supply. Since one of the biggest problems with space travel is the weight you carry it's sure to be a major focus for the space project. The stasis can offset human beings lives, freeze the or the rich until we have better capacity to deal with them. As you can plainly see both of those are already things that are obviously going to help mankind greatly. Especially the poor. If we can create more efficient farming then a lot of poverty issues are very close to be solved.
Their strongest counterargument is probably that the exponential effect of defeating poverty would carry them. But since you've now made the point that Mars travel is two birds with one stone your general audience will likely believe that Mars travel has both effects within reasonable time and is thus better.
A hybrid solution is obviously the best way but it's a contrived example of policy obviously.
I really think your speech is quite good. Depends on how the audience is obviously. Always the hardest bit when it comes to rhetoric. Maybe skip that cocky bit at the start. Most respond negatively to that. It should be delivered as a joke if you have the capacity. But I'd say skip it.
>>16857294
Hmm ok. Then broadly presenting like this may be better than >>16857320 . The space tech is an investment many private interests may be interested in. So assuming you're not a communist government the project may get much more support Than poverty, and the extra effort being put in fast would greatly improve the yield since the effects come faster.
I think drawing some kind of connection to how trains helped America or other inventions that revolutionized society like aqueducts may appeal to a lot of people.
What age group is this op?
>>16857320
Wow thanks for taking your time to give me such feedback. I really appreciate it
>>16857327
around 23 to 26 year olds. It's a business school and we are master students in Europe. I'm 23. The jury is supposed to be quite good though, includes the dean of the university and an ex-director of the UN.
>>16857337
OK. So they're pretty far up there. That makes their generation much less important. If you have an ex-UN director maybe appealing to peace matters is good. He/she should know that the world isn't as peaceful as it seems and that a space tech cooperation can strengthen alliances. As could a war on poverty but the problem is that you'd have to have an international annexing of the poor people in some way to get everyone on board. As countries prioritize themselves first. With space tech that's trivial, you just ensure the tech will be shared in some form and the gains from Mars colonization will be shared. Also most international politicians agree that the world is moving away from being as divided as it is now and is gonna be more like a unit. Focusing on the task that's a solid cooperation rather than a resource grab like annexing poor people would be wiser if you want to promote a more joint world.
It's gonna be really hard to fit all the good there is to say about Mars colonisation. Not sure if the term is that good though. It has a negative connotation usually. Mars travel is an OK term but it doesn't emphasise that Mars may be a good place to go. Maybe ignoring the colonisation altogether is better because it's such a far away goal and you're competing with something people consider achieve able. Also wars on poverty has been going on for a long time now. It's not a trivial issue, people don't realize it but it may be good to mention.
>>16857364
Thanks man, you're giving me a lot to work with
>>16857394
No problem. Just mention 'anon on 4chan' in the credits ;)
>>16857394
Also maybe share these ideas with your house. Consistency is good.
>>16857192
You can't fix global poverty. Niggers will always waste their money and poor people will always continue driving their families and their peers towards poverty.
You can, however, go to Mars. This can never be taken away from us.
weather satellites are next to useless for farming.
humans will never live anywhere but earth, faster than light travel is impossible and no place else inhabitable is possible for a living human to ever reach. if you actually believe humans need to leave earth shut down nasa and spend it's budget digging for stargates, it's be no less impossible to find one and we'd do some good archeology instead of building missiles.
>>16857364
>a space tech cooperation can strengthen alliances
I don't see why you think that, historically it has only worsened relationships between countries.
>>16857457
>has no insight into research
>comments on it
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/agricultural-and-forest-meteorology/
Here's a journal on that stuff. Now you might realize that there wouldn't be a journal for these two subjects together if they didn't have any relation. The world is a lot more complicated than you think.
>>16857470
>meteorology
that the word has "meteor" in there does not make it a satellite based science. the overwhelming majority of data used in meteorology is from ground stations.
>>16857463
That was the cold war. You're not looking at recent cooperations. It's not really valid to consider. And even the cold war benefited mankind a bit because it encouraged a lot of advances in many different fields. Material science being one of the big ones.
Of course investing in research during peace has better focus of course. And a space race wouldn't be too bad really even if it were to divide the world into two space race blocks it's not a war and research would happen. Not optimal, since the research isn't gonna a be published but it's more focus on that stuff atleast.
>>16857414
Oh they are here with me, don't worry. We are paying a lot of attention to consistency specially due to the fact that they will follow up my part.
>>16857457
well if that's true let's just hope the other team doesn't know that hehe
I think most people believe in this correlation naturally
>>16857477
It has helped increase our understanding no doubt. I'm not sure how well we'd be helped now in that field. It's usually hard to understand what the next step would be.
It's not all about amounts of data it's about quality and where/how. Ground stations could not measure high enough usually. Weather balloons are not able to get the entire scale. Satellites are. And that's what op was saying. He's not even claiming space will help meteorology more, he's just saying that it has helped.
I don't know what other example he could take but I'm sure there's something. The satellites are pretty good because it's much more tangible than other research I'm imagining from space tech. Since it pertains to space there's no 'but that could be done without going to space'.
As a supporter of free market capitalism and minimal state, I don't approve.
"We" shouldn't do either. Governments are the cause of poverty, not the solution.
Spending 0.5% of GDP on space means people can spend 0.5% less on things they actually want.
It is true that space technology is tremendous beneficial, but the beneficial projects are already commercial,
I know many don't support the outsourcing since it's destroying jobs in the developed countries, but it's the single most important thing we have done to poverty. A BILLION people is close to be out of poverty in just 10 years.
>>16857515
>there's no 'but that could be done without going to space'.
there is though.
>>16857552
Well anon you should make that kind of applied science then. Because farsight is not possible in our reality but if you can make it happen we would probably be able to find a more advanced planet and steal their information.
How are you planning to watch earth intensely without satellites? And whatever that is why is not putting whatever it is into orbit a good idea?
Atleast present your idea, don't just claim there's other ways to monitor weather globally like that.
>>16857539
OP here
Speaking for myself I agree completely with you but we didn't have a choice in either the topic and our position in it. Shame.
1.) Going to Mars is many times cheaper than solving global hunger.
2.) There are always going to be hungry people. Should we just stop all scientific advancement in order to try and feed starving people?
3.) You need to address more about what benefits there are to civilization for going to Mars. You have barely touched on this.
4.) Your argument is presented in a colloquial manner. It needs polished and you have grammar errors.
