PFD-Negative St. Thomas H.S. M. Dowdall & K.

Lozano Resolved: Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment. In order to maintain clarity in this round my partner and I offer the following definitions from the authority of Economics Professor Jared De Groote of the University of Groningen. y Private Sector: Corporations or other private entities that exist free from the influence of governments in terms of both methods of procurement of profit and utilization of said profit Public Sector: Any and all governments whos primary goals supersede those of financial gain but are not mutually exclusive to monetary requisition Investment: The allocation of monetary or physical resources for equitable return of profit or other advancements Human Space Exploration: Expansion beyond Earths mesosphere for the purpose of advancement, in which one or more human beings are present en locale

y y y

Framework: The governments control of contemporary manned space exploration is an essential part of the duties of a government and branches therein to their citizens. The control of this branch of space exploration by global governments is critical for many reasons, some of which include: insurance of astronautical and societal safety, expansion of public knowledge, and fulfillment of governmental obligations. It is through these reasons and the examination of social and global systems pertaining to government that we find the paradigms of this debate thusly, that it is a governments foremost and primary duty is to protect and serve her citizens through compliance with international treaties and improvement of quality of life. Contention I: In these times of economic turmoil it is necessary for governments to create job growth through direct investment. Sub-Point A: A governments solvency depends on the creation of jobs while the private sector strives to create jobs only to the point where it is beneficial financially. All governments that preside over any level of economic production or distribution directly benefit from a stable economy; therefore job creation effectuates a direct capital benefit to the government, while corporate job creation is plausible only in periods of economic prosperity. Furthermore private sector job creation yields fewer benefits and societal

advancements due to a risk cost benefit analysis of potential projects. This decision between the corporately viewed mutually exclusive options of social welfare and profit will always result in the attenuation of civil felicity and perpetuate a system in which marketability determines ultimate good, this slippery and dangerous slope will not only lead to decreased quality in aspects of consumerism but would also lead to the privatization of other cardinal responsibilities and further enfeeblement of quality of life. This undermining of communal global benefit not only would serve no benefit socially it would serve no benefit economically, thus undermining the duty of any just government. Sub-Point B: The historical precedence of the universal axioms of economic growth and decline dictates that all exponential strides in ending periods of recession have come from public sector investment as opposed to private sector investment. Therefore propositions of economic pseudo-salvation coming from investment into private sector space exploration would serve only as a temporary solution to a permanent problem. This fallacy of privatization as the be all and end all of recession solutions can be summed up by the words Prof. Martin Scarborough The utilization of privatization as a means to cure economic tumult is equivocal to using Elmers glue to rebuild a house. Contention II: Private sector expansion into space would not only be detrimental to the constitutive contemporary human environment, as seen through the prevenience of previous private sector projects, but would also violate current international treaties. Sub-point C: The potential for economic and environmental danger along with the increased loss of life during private projects and expansion justifies the use of public investment beyond that of private investment. Upon an analysis of private projects compared to public projects performed by the political action committee for the advancement of the U.S. public citizen, it was found that projects funded by the private sector are more 4 times more likely to incur a death or serious injury and are more than 35 time more likely to result in a detrimental environmental act. These increased risks and decreased potential gains impugn the very suggestion of corporate favored balance of the human space industry. Sub-Point D: Private sector investment in space for the purposes of profit and harvesting of spacial resources violates international treaties upheld comprehensively and universally. The Outer Space Treaty Governing the Use of Space Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies dictates that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, are not subject to appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means this legal prevention of private expansion for the use of profit is further affirmed by the treatys allocation of liability to governments and prevention of contamination of celestial bodies, therefore the use of these bodies even if viable, would not be justified given the potential danger to government due to articles 117 of the treaty pertaining to accountability and the increased chance of private sector

iniquity. In conclusion private sector actions that pose threats to governmental sovereignty through hazardous practices in the areas of economics, environment, and law clearly show the favorability of public sector investment in human space exploration.