Would the World be a Better Place if Large-Scale Emigration to Other Planets were to be Possible?

Our world is in a predicament. The delicate balance that supports life that evolution (or God) has created is being tilted by deforestation, overfishing, increasing population, global warming and such, threatening the fundamentals for life. Planet Earth appears to be spiraling downwards towards an inescapable end. About half of the mature tropical forests, between 750 to 800 million hectares of the original 1. 5 to 1. 6 billion hectares that once covered the planet have been felled, and animals are becoming extinct more quickly than ever (experts have estimated that up to half of presently existing species may become extinct by 2100).

Our main energy sources, oil and natural gas supplies, are rapidly running dry. The future of the earth, hi??las, looks dark. Taking all of this into consideration, it appears that mass emigration to another planet might be the only solution. However, is it really too late to turn the clock? Or maybe more importantly, is it morally right to abandon ship when the storm is gathering? The damage we have caused to our world is both unbelievable and undeniable. Only 17% of planet Earth's landmass is still untouched by mankind (excluding Antarctica).

Our world's natural oil and gas resources are soon fully consumed; renewable sources only stand for about 13% of the energy created. All the emissions from burning fossil fuels are carelessly released into the atmosphere, and as a result, the ozone layer is in an incredibly tattered shape. However, if we could move to another planet, thus leaving this one, the Earth would recuperate. The largest hole in the ozone, the one above the Antarctic, would, according to NASA scientists, recover by 2068.

Order custom essay Would the World be a Better Place if Large-Scale Emigration to Other Planets were to be Possible? with free plagiarism report

450+ experts on 30 subjects Starting from 3 hours delivery

Get Essay Help

Similarly, if there were no humans to fish the oceans dry, and no humans to chop the forests down, slowly but steadily, the world's ecosystems would recover and the biodiversity would regain lost grounds. The human race has created this situation, and we owe it to the Earth and the other species that we reverse it. There are a number of valid arguments for saving our world by emigrating to another, and although leaving for another planet may save this one, abandoning Earth may not yet be necessary.

All hope is not lost - it is still within our power to undo the damages ourselves. It will be a task of great difficulty, but one that we can pull off. Since when were problems solved by burying one's head in the sand? Besides, if you do bury your head in the sand, chances are, you won't like what you see when you stick it back up. Taking the emergency exit whenever there are bumps on the road will create a "laissez faire" mentality, which never has solved anything.

If awareness of this crisis can be raised all around the world, and if people realize just how important the matter we are dealing with is, there is a significant chance that we can start acting in a sufficiently environmentally friendly manner for the previous natural balance to be restored, without us leaving Earth for a far-off planet. By abandoning the planet we do not solve the true problem, we simply run away from it. If we were all deported to another planet, but didn't change our behavior, all we would do is repeat the same mistakes we made on Earth.

What does shifting planets mean if we still don't own up and take action to reverse the situation we have thrust ourselves into? If we recognize now that problems such as global warming, overfishing and deforestation are not resolved by turning our backs to them, it will also be understood that these will not vanish because we choose to flee from them. We must do something about the tribulations we have now, only then we can move on. Exporting our problems to another planet is not solving them. Furthermore, there is also is a moral aspect to this issue.

It would be indecent and ethically incorrect to simply change planets and abandon earth when we are encountering real and serious problems which in addition are caused by ourselves This world is optimal for our form of life. If just the weight of the proton in the air molecule was the slightest bit different all life on earth would be impossible. Similarly, if aliens would visit Earth, they would die of inhaling oxygen. It is an incredible chain of circumstances that allow us to live by breathing oxygen.

The human race has become adapted to live on planet Earth over millions and millions of years of evolution. Just like a hole is perfect for the water puddle it contains, Earth is perfect for man. This taken into consideration, we can't just destroy this Earth, and then leave it without the slightest effort to do something about it. We were made for this planet, and now that it is being destroyed, the very least we can do is to try to reverse what we've done. In any case, fleeing should be the very last option. All of us who inhabit Earth have inherited it from earlier generations.

We are merely the present caretakers of this Earth, just like thousands of generations before us have been. Therefore, we have a moral responsibility, both towards our children as well as to our ancestors, to protect and preserve something extraordinary that no one ever can own, only borrow. On the one hand, it is a fact that we are well on the way of destroying Earth, and if all human beings were to leave the Earth, there is a chance that the Earth might recover. However, this is only true if all humans are transported to another planet.

The question was "would the world be a better place if large-scale emigration to other planets were to be possible? " Upon a closer look, mass emigration does not necessarily mean that all humans are transported, rather just some. This is certainly of importance, as it is not necessarily the number of people on Earth that decides if the world is going to recuperate or not. What is more important is how the people who actually do live here treat the environment, i e how much carbon emissions are released into the atmosphere, how much fish we fish from our seas and how many trees we cut from our forests.

If 50% of the world's population was evacuated to another planet, but the remaining 50% treated the environment worse than before, the problems would not be solved. Rather than focusing on efficient ways to deport masses of people to other planets, we should focus on efficient ways to save this planet, with us on it. On the other hand, it is probably true that the abandoning of the planet will have to occur sooner or later. 99. 9% of all species ever to reside on planet Earth are now extinct.

Mankind will certainly not be an exception. Even if we don't drive ourselves into extinction, or a comet crashing into Earth doesn't do it for us, in about one billion years the sun will start dying. It will slowly begin to swell up, and produce more heat, making life on this entire solar system impossible. If the ultimate aim of mankind is survival, emigration to another planet might then be the only option. However, this is not the case today. We still have an option; so let us take advantage of it.

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

Check my essay Hire Writer