- Question
- Should we explore space?
- Position‹2 of 2
- "No, we shouldn’t explore space"
- Argument‹2 of 2
There’s nothing in space worth exploring
Theories about what exists in space have far surpassed outweighed the facts that we have. The planets closest to Earth aren’t inhabitable for human life, and chances are other planets we find won't be inhabitable either. What makes us think that continuing to explore space is useful?
The argument
The case here rests on a simple premise about what space actually contains. Exploration, proponents of this argument note, is only worthwhile when there is something to find: a destination, a resource, a discovery that repays the effort of getting there. On this view, space fails that test. Set aside the planets and the stars, and what remains is a vacuum — an immense emptiness populated by little more than drifting dust and asteroids. There is, advocates hold, no meaningful inventory of things out there to encounter, study, or use; the overwhelming bulk of space is simply nothing at all. From that premise the reasoning proceeds step by step. If the value of exploring any territory depends on what that territory holds, and if space beyond its scattered planets and stars holds only vacuum, dust, and asteroid rock, then space offers no return that could justify the cost of reaching it. Effort and funding are not free: every programme of space travel consumes resources that must be justified by what the traveller stands to gain, and where the destination is empty, that justification never arrives. Spending on space travel, on this account, is spending aimed at nothing — activity without an object, expense without a prospective payoff. The conclusion follows directly, and it is what ties this argument to the position that we should not explore space. Proponents argue that the question "should we explore?" is really the question "is there anything worth exploring?" — and if the honest answer is no, the entire enterprise loses its rationale. Exploration is not valuable in itself, on this view; it borrows its value from what it might uncover. A vacuum of dust and asteroids can lend it none, and so no effort or funding should be directed toward space travel.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Space is filled with interesting objects. The Moon has oceans, there are stars that become supernovas, and there is sulfur on Mars. In 2017, a photo of a black hole was captured. For years, black holes have only existed in theory. Scientists have even found that bacteria, when exposed in space, becomes more resistant to medication. Space has so much interesting information to offer mankind. Space exploration should be funded.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Space does have many interesting things to explore. [Rejecting P3] Space travel deserves some funding as scientific progression is important to society.