It causes division within society  Religious symbols, such as the veil divide society. When some Muslim women wear the veil, it creates pressure on others to do so as well. Pressure comes from wanting to fit in, and pressure from other people in the community seeing those who don’t wear the veil as being somehow less religious.  Allowing it in schools makes it more visible to non-Muslims, making them more likely to perceive it as a core part of the faith. It then gives the impression to outsiders that Islam is more extreme than it really is.


A ban would be easy to enforce  As a face covering is very obvious, it would be a school to check to see if someone is wearing one. France [1] and Turkey [2] already have attempted such bans on headscarves, which do not cover the face.  This could be enforced by teachers, not police.  [1] BBC News, ‘French scarf ban comes into force’, 2 September 2004,   [2] Rainsford, Sarah, ‘Turkey divided over headscarf ban’, BBC News, 11 February 2008,


Each religious symbol should be taken on its own merits. Unlike many other religious manifestations, the veil covers the face, which has its own problems in Western societies because it makes it harder to understand someone wearing it. This is not about the religious symbol of the burqa but about the communication problem it creates.


A ban on face coverings wouldn’t be a target to a particular faith as it would also ban veils that might be desired by people of other faiths as well. Moreover only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe wear the veil; in France with 5million Muslims it is thought that only 350 wear the face veil. [1]  [1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘There’s nothing enlightened about burka-bashing’, Spiked, 19 September 2013,


It’s a personal matter – it doesn’t concern others  Wearing religious and cultural symbols are a matter of personal choice. Getting the government involved in such a personal matter is a breach of privacy. The Belgian ban has been unpopular amongst some people because those who want to wear it are being limited to staying within their homes. In France a ban on the burqa has led to increasing abuse of those who do wear it; 94% of victims of anti-Muslim physical and verbal abuse are women. [1]  [1] Irving, Helene, ‘France’s “Burqa Ban” Enforcing Not Solving Inequality’, Open Society Foundations, 13 April 2012,


It’s their culture and religion  Religion is intimately linked to culture and people’s identity. To many people who believe that religion, it is very important to them. In a society with respect for human rights, people are able to not just have their religious beliefs, but put them in to practice.


If you ban it, you have to ban everything else  If one form of religious symbolism is banned, it would be difficult to justify not banning others. If the government considers face coverings which would be seen as an attack on Muslims (while only a small minority of Muslim women wear them, they are not popular in other faiths apart from for specific uses). If the motive for such a ban is integration and uniformity, items such as the Sikh turban and potentially the Christian cross should be banned as well.


A ban on the veil is just a way of targeting Muslims  This measure would just be seen as a way of targeting Muslims. Religious symbols would be used as a way of singling out Muslims as a cause of division when any such problem is bigger than any one community. Muslims would be right to ask why the veil is banned while the Kirpan, a small ceremonial knife carried by Sikhs so potentially dangerous, is allowed.


Not all Muslims believe that a full veil is a necessary part of their religion or culture. On the other side must be considered a culture that believes in being able to see the people who you are dealing with. Communication is an important part of culture, and visual contact is an important part of communication.


The veil is a visible symbol intended to be seen by others so it is clearly not just personal. It could be used to conceal identity, for example in the UK a group of robbers disguised themselves in burqas to steal over a million pounds of watches in Selfridges [1] .  [1] Davenport, Justin, ‘Selfridges 'burka gang' detectives arrest five men in dawn raids’, London Evening Standard, 22 October 2013,


There can be no description of human reality, in general or in particular, outside the reality of Christ. We must be on guard, therefore, against constructing any other ground for our identities than the redeemed humanity given to use in him. Those who understand themselves as homosexuals, no more and no less than those who do not, are liable to false understandings based on personal or family histories, emotional dispositions, social settings and solidarities formed by common experiences or ambitions. Our sexual affections can no more define who we are than our class race or nationality. At the deepest ontological level, therefore, there is no such thing as "a" homosexual or "a" heterosexual; therefore there are human beings, male and female, called to redeemed humanity in Christ, endowed with a complex variety of emotional potentialities and threatened by a complex variety of forms of alienation. [1]  [1] The Lembeth Conference 1998. Resolution I.10


Sexuality is an intrinsic part of personality  Sexuality is an indivisible part of personhood; people need to be able to express their sexuality openly in order to fully actualise themselves. It is wrong therefore to use sexuality as an individual metric by which they are eligible to become priests or not – they should be taken on the whole of their personhood.


Priests act as representatives of God towards members of their congregation, not vice versa. The argument against women priests is that, while women are children of God and part of the church, they cannot represent Jesus in performing the communion service simply because he was male. The same applies to homosexuals; they cannot represent Him in the same way. The rule against gay priests but not against gay laity is not hypocritical but merely reflects the application of differing standards of discipline.


Homosexuality exists in nature and is therefore part of God’s plan  Homosexual behaviour occurs naturally – both in humans and in the animal world, it has been observed in over 1500 animal species of all different types from mammals to crabs to worms. [1] It must be a misunderstanding of God’s plan to say that homosexuality is unnatural – it forms a part of the world that He has created and therefore must form part of His plan.  The substance of what the Bible says about sexuality is that what matters is having a stable and loving relationship, not who that relationship is with.  [1] NewsMedical, ‘1,500 animal species practice homosexuality’, 23 October 2006,


Infanticide is a part of nature, as is cannibalism. What separates humanity from the rest of the natural world is our ability to appreciate morality beyond ‘what is natural’.  One of the moral rules that God has imparted to us is that the only moral sexual behaviour is between man and wife. Other moral systems obviously take a different view of sexual ethics, but they aren’t relevant how a Christian Church should organise itself.


Religion is not a political party, changing and catering to the views of the current electorate. The Church acts as the curator of God’s Word and maintains its principles no matter how unfashionable they may be. This is especially important in an increasingly secular age when Christianity will only survive by virtue of it maintaining a clear, consistent message.


Priests have to represent their congregations  Priests have a responsibility to represent the members of their congregations. A large number of Christians are gay, and they can receive better spiritual direction from gay ministers than from heterosexuals who do not understand their lifestyles or relationships as well.


The Church has adapted before, it can adapt now  The Church has adapted over the centuries on a number of social and natural issues as it seeks to re-interpret and re-explain God’s message of love in the terms of modern society. For example Churches have adapted to the problems that science has thrown up, even the Catholic church, often the slowest to embrace change did eventually agree with Galileo over the earth going round the sun. [1] The acceptance of homosexuality and admission of gay priests is a necessary next step for the Church today. There will be others in the future.  [1] Butt, Riazat, ‘The Vatican may be cosying up to science but it will never go all the way’, Notes&Theories guardian.co.uk, 23 February 2011,


Catholic doctrine is not the doctrine of all Christian churches. It is right to say that ordination is a privilege of service granted to men deemed mature enough to be faithful to that service – which is why that decision should be taken on each person as a rounded basis and not as an absolute litmus checklist of issues.


The part of the Book of Leviticus which sentences homosexuals to death also: permits polygamy, bans tattoos, prohibits eating meat that isn’t well-cooked, prohibits eating rabbits, pigs or some forms of seafood, and prohibits the wearing of clothes made of blended textiles (such as polyester). Most Christians accept that parts of the Bible were written according to the out-dated social opinions of the time and can be taken lightly. The only New Testament comments about homosexuality come from the moralising apostle Paul; there is nothing directly from Jesus, in the Gospels themselves.


The Church condemns all sex outside of marriage, hetero or homosexual in nature  There can be no doubt that the Bible and Jesus strongly condemn sex outside of Christian marriage (or ‘fornication’). Indeed for much of Christian history sex even within marriage has been seen as a necessary evil that should only be for creating children, as a result priests, monks and nuns had to be celibate. [1] Although Jesus spent time in the company of adulterers, He loved "the sinner, not the sin" - and ordered them to cease their behaviour. His response to homosexuals would have been just as unequivocal.  [1] Bacchiocchi, Samuele, ‘Marriage and Sex’, The Marriage Covenant: A Biblical Study on Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,


Ordination is not a right.  Ordination is a privilege of service granted to men deemed mature enough in all aspects of their lives to be able to be faithful to that service  It is Catholic doctrine that Homosexuals are incapable of perceiving human nature as God as created it, consisting of male and female persons meant for mutual attraction, complementarity, and, God-willing, marriage and children.  Instead, they see members of their own gender as mutually attractive in a sexual sense. They do not see females as such. In other words, they do not see or experience objective reality. Since this is so, it follows that homosexual priests possess a serious handicap which makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to serve well as ordained ministers. [1]  [1] Abbott, Matt C., ‘Three priests speak on ‘gay priest’ ban’. September 2005.


Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible  Homosexuality is "a grievous sin" in the Bible (Gen 18:20), a capital crime (Lev 20:13), and punishable by exclusion from the Kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor 6:9-10). Christians - especially priests - must accept the Bible as the ultimate authority. Christian ministry is therefore incompatible with homosexuality. Jesus was a radical teacher and overturned Jewish tradition where He saw it was necessary to do so; His silence on homosexuality indicates that He saw no need in this case.


Condemning homosexuality as sex outside marriage is unfair, since it is the Christian church which does not offer the right of marriage to gays and lesbians. If it were to do so, they could enjoy sex within loving relationships, sanctified by the Church, just as heterosexuals do. Jesus’ main teaching was clear - "love your God and love your neighbour" - and there is clear difference between adultery and homosexuality in this respect; the former causes pain and has a victim (the betrayed partner), the latter can be a purely loving relationship.


The appreciation for complex life by all reasoning should be universal among intelligent species. It seems intelligent life is a rarity in the Universe, and thus it would be unlikely for any civilization, no matter how advanced beyond our own, not to appreciate the advent of complex life on Earth and the value of humanity, flawed and inferior as it might appear to them1. The time energy necessary to traverse the stars in order to reach Earth would only be worth spending if it were to a peaceful end. War would yield only the resources of this small planet, hardly the spoils worth an interstellar war, however one-sided it might prove. Human civilization, as short as its span has been, has developed far in terms of both physical and social sciences. The wealth of knowledge that might be had from contacting extraterrestrials is too great an opportunity to pass up. 1 Sagan, Carl. 1973. Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Cambridge: MIT Press.


There is no way to prevent attempts at contact so they should be official.  There is no way for us to attempt to prevent everyone in the planet from trying to contact aliens so the attempts might as well be done officially. There are more than 6 billion people on Earth, we cannot control their actions or keep an eye on them all. If we had no official messages going out then we would be allowing private individuals to monopolize the message which could have consequences if there ever is contact as a result of these attempts1. At the same time we can't just turn off all our communication signals. We have been broadcasting our radio and television shows, mobile phone conversations etc. for decades, how would we just shut it all off and make sure nothing leaks further out to space? It is therefore better for governments who are at least the representatives of their people to be controlling the message by themselves attempting to contact extraterrestrial life. 1  ">Drezner, Daniel, 'How do you say "realpolitik" in Klingon?' ForeignPolicy.com, 25th April 201


Certainly there are many concerns on Earth that must be addressed if mankind hopes to survive. Pollution and climate change are real threats that deserve a great deal of attention from all governments around the world, since everyone is affected. This attention, however, does not need to exclude from the agenda the effort to contact extraterrestrials. Rather, states can focus on more than one science-based issue at a time. It is rather disingenuous, in fact, to suggest that it is a matter of one or the other. Furthermore, the international unity created by mankind's collective search for intelligent life in space, binding people not as members of separate nations, but as members of the human race, can serve as a means of promoting unified action on issues affecting the whole planet. Space exploration and the search for intelligent life among the stars can thus actually help to ameliorate coordination problems between states in their efforts to deal with global issues. Clearly, when people think of themselves as citizens of the world they are more ready to think globally and consider issues affecting other countries. The search for extraterrestrials is a very real means of promoting such thinking.


The effort to contact extraterrestrial life causes humans around the world to think of themselves as one community, with an identity and purpose that transcends borders:  Space exploration fosters a general sense of internationalism. For example, in no endeavor have scientists from around the world more readily worked together than in the development of the International Space Station and other space-related enterprises. Looking beyond the Earth serves to unite humanity in a way nothing else can1. When the Apollo astronauts first transmitted images of the Earth back to the waiting masses, the sight of that tiny blue-white marble suspended in the vast void profoundly changed the way many people viewed themselves. There was for the first time a sense of oneness, of citizenship of this island Earth. In the transmissions beamed into space in hopes of contacting extraterrestrials, the messages are emissaries of the entire human race. In this way space exploration actually gives mankind a transcendent purpose, promoting peace and understanding among nations that no amount of conventional diplomacy can create. Further to this, in seeking to be representative of all humanity, the formers of messages to be sent into space must actively ask the question of what it is to be human. In seeking an answer, people foster greater understanding of one another and of the oneness of human existence.  1 Van de Hulst, H. 1961. "International Space Cooperation". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 17(5).


Space exploration produces many valuable technological innovations that benefit all of human society:  Space exploration and research have resulted in many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program1. The technological advances produced by the space program would not have been possible were it not for the intensity of focus on the paradigm of exploration. That same paradigm has come to permeate scientific enquiry generally, pushing scientists to seek new answers and to develop new technologies. So long as mankind keeps pushing the barriers of its own knowledge, it will never stagnate, and human understanding of the Universe will continue to grow. Should humanity, however, take an insular view of itself and turn back on a history of pushing of boundaries, the paradigm of progress might dissolve as well. 1 Coalition for Space Exploration. 2010. "Benefits of Space


The benefits accrued from spin-off technology resulting from space exploration are generally overstated. NASA, for example, had claimed that protein crystals could be grown in zero gravity that could fight cancer, as well as numerous other claims of benefits. Most of these benefits have never materialized. With all the billions of dollars wasted on space exploration and trying to contact extraterrestrials, most of the spin-off technologies could likely have been created independently, given the resources, and probably at lower overall expense. As to the paradigm of exploration, efforts to explore parts of space, as well as our own planet would continue. The paradigm is not shattered by the choice to take a cautious approach toward extraterrestrial life, which is likely a waste of effort anyway.


The search for extraterrestrial life does not solve the problem of the human propensity toward group distinctions. Even if such projects succeeded in fostering a sense of universal humanity, it only does so at the cost of creating a new in group-out group dynamic, namely humans defining themselves against the out group that is extraterrestrial life. Such redefinition of identity could cause serious problems in the extremely unlikely event that humans ever actually do make contact with extraterrestrial life.


Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and the search for alien life is part of mankind's exploration of the Universe:  Human history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known1. Mankind's place is among the stars, and what lies beyond the Earth will also fascinate the human imagination. Nothing is so exciting as the pursuit of other life, other beings with whom to share the knowledge of mankind and the wisdom of the cosmos. Governments should not try to slow Man's progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human. Truly, the quest to discover and contact life amongst the stars is a pursuit of truth and understanding. To not pursue such knowledge is to deny truth itself. 1 Dick, Steven. 2009. "Why We Explore". NASA. Available Why_We_/Why_We_05.html


The knowledge and technology to be gained from interaction with extraterrestrials is potentially limitless:  Humanity has built, in the relatively few millennia since formal writing was invented, compiled a truly gigantic quantity of information and knowledge, to which it is constantly adding, at increasingly rapid rates. To imagine the treasure trove of knowledge and experience that would become available to humanity in the event of contact with intelligent extraterrestrial life of similar, or even greater, technological and social development is almost impossible1. The wisdom that could be gained, especially considering that alien life would likely have evolved along very different lines than humans, could be of a kind that mankind could never have conceived without such contact. This great potential for the gaining of knowledge is reason enough to devote resources to the effort of making contact. 1 Sagan, Carl. 1973. Communication with Extraterrestrial Intelligence. Cambridge: MIT Press.


There is no need for us to be searching for alien life to be exploring the universe. The dream of contacting aliens seems to be an example of humanity's dreams gone awry. Earth's beamed messages and questing probes have for their efforts received no return signal. Surely if intelligent life were near enough to have received our signals, they would have replied. Alternatively, if they are too far away, there is no physical means by which they could ever reach Earth, due to the constraints of the laws of physics, which deny objects the power of reaching the speed of light. Furthermore, the value of the drive to explore itself should be questioned, since humanity's track record on the subject is far from stellar; the abysmal treatment of the Native Americans by European settlers, for example, shows that the will to explore can come with terrible costs.


It seems unlikely that humans would not be able to survive a great change of circumstance. The human mind is quite resilient, and while the change in how people viewed themselves and the Universe would likely change substantially, it might well be for the better. In fact, discovery of extraterrestrials might help free people from the shackles of dogmatic religious belief, which has caused untold suffering to many through the ages.


Contact with an extraterrestrial civilization more advanced than our own could lead to mass existential crises, putting the existence of human civilization at risk:  Almost every human belief system, religious or secular, is based on an anthropocentric outlook. Humanity is the collective center of its Universe; the cognitively aware being that can interact with physical reality not simply by impulse, but by self-aware, conscious agency. Human belief in itself is based upon its conception of dominion over the physical world. Mankind shapes its own environment; while weaker, slower, and smaller than many other species, the intelligence of Man makes Him the apex predator. Mankind's image of itself is compromised by the existence of other intelligent life, especially more advanced intelligent life. It seems that most religious belief systems could not effectively survive with such knowledge, since the existence of intelligent, advanced extraterrestrials seems to imply the nonexistence of a creator God with any active interest in humanity over any other species1. The realization that we are not the center of the Universe could shake many people to their cores, particularly the religious, many of whom would likely find great difficulty coming to terms with that reality. It would be better that humans not seek out such revelations about the Universe. If intelligent life does exist elsewhere in the Universe, better not to invite it to Earth. The cost to people's beliefs and sense of being is too high. 1 Peters, Ted. 2011. "The Implications of the Discovery of Extra-Terrestrial Life for Religion". Philosophical Transactions of the


The focus of states and individuals should be on fixing the problems of this planet, not with exploring other ones:  The Earth is faced with many problems that people should be focusing their efforts on addressing, not on the stars and what may or may not be out there. Global warming, the destruction of ecosystems, rising sea levels, pollution, poverty, and resource depletion are all issues weighing heavily on states and the international community as a whole. Individuals and governments need to rally and fight these growing terrestrial problems1. The resources poured into space exploration and the contacting of extraterrestrials, which will likely serve no lasting purpose, would be better spent in combating the hundreds of serious issues facing the planet today. The search for extraterrestrials serves only as a distraction, keeping people's minds off the pressing concerns of the Earth. To make things worse, governments use manned space flight as a means of distraction quite deliberately. It is often easier to devote attention and resources to headline-grabbing endeavors like efforts to contact extraterrestrials than to address concerns like global warming, which requires extensive international coordination to a degree rarely reached in history. As is shown by developing countries like China and India having space programs while helping to block progress on climate talks and while they still have millions in poverty. Governments may find utility in keeping people focused on such grand projects while doing comparably little to affect change where it is direly needed. Clearly, humanity's concerns should be focused wholly on the survival of its home world, not on trying to get in touch with worlds that might not even exist, and almost certainly cannot sustain human life. 1 Carreau, Mark. 2009. "NASA Urged to Keep Feet On Earth". The Chronicle.


Attempts to contact extraterrestrial life are a waste of time and money:  Billions of dollars have been spent by a number of countries, principally the United States, on great projects seeking to make contact and signal extraterrestrials. None of these has received so much as a peep in reply. The reason for this is likely that intelligent life is an extreme rarity, with humanity its only exemplar in this part of the galaxy1. If there were intelligent life within receiving range of Earth-based transmissions, the extraterrestrials would have had ample opportunity to respond, or at least make their presence known. The fact that they have not suggests that there are no extraterrestrials within contactable range, or at least none with any interest in talking to Earthlings. If there were extraterrestrials on more distant planets, efforts to contact them would be pointless, as they would be so far away that communication would take many years and would be unreachable physically. Furthermore, the search for extraterrestrials violates reason. Money should only be spent on projects after phenomena worth analyzing have been detected. There is no evidence that intelligent lie other than our own exists at all. Trying to contact little green men in space is just a waste of time. 1 Ward, Peter. 2000. Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. Philadelphia: Springer.


Extraterrestrials might prove unintelligible, or even hostile toward humanity:  Were extraterrestrials to actually be contacted, an unlikely event in itself, the ability to share in any form of meaningful communication might well prove more difficult than might first seem. The extraterrestrials will have evolved on a different world, perhaps along lines so alien to that of Earth's life that it would be utterly impossible to understand what they said, even if they could be heard. Language is built largely on frames of reference, and when an extraterrestrial, evolving on an entirely alien world, perhaps possessing an entirely alien thought process, and certainly having an entirely alien linguistic frame of reference, no level of communication might be possible. With no conceptual similarities or cognitive common ground, the potential for sharing knowledge between species would likely prove impossible to decipher. They could simply be too alien. Furthermore, the hope that technologically advanced extraterrestrials would be friendly towards humanity is entirely unfounded. They might well prove hostile, and if they are more technologically advanced, they could prove an existential threat to the survival of mankind1. This is especially true if the extraterrestrials were actually capable of physically reaching Earth, which would require an understanding of physics and engineering centuries ahead of that of mankind. Welcoming such creatures to Earth could well spell ruin for humanity, as so advanced a civilization might well consider humanity to be of no higher an order of life than we might consider insects. It is far better than humanity not make such a habit of broadcasting its position. It could prove dangerous, especially if the Universe is not as friendly a place as scientists hope.  1 Brin, David. 2006. "Shouting at the Cosmos". Lifeboat Foundation.


The potential for sharing of knowledge, were extraterrestrials to actually be contacted, might well be more limited and difficult than might first seem. The extraterrestrials will have evolved on a different world, perhaps along lines so alien to that of Earth's life that it would be utterly impossible to understand what they would have to say, even if they could be heard. They could simply be too alien. There is no reason to believe that any aliens are going to benevolent they could very well be hostile. (Brin, 2006) We should not therefore be attempting to contact aliens to share technology rather we should be focusing on advancing our own technology. 1 Brin, David. 2006. "Shouting at the Cosmos". Lifeboat Foundation.


Just because efforts to contact extraterrestrials to date have proven unsuccessful does not mean they are not out there. In fact, as communications technology develops over time, humans' ability to project messages and to receive them will increase manifold. Extraterrestrial transmissions could well be beaming toward Earth, but humans might simply lack the capacity to receive them. There could be an interplanetary conversation happening right now, and no one would even know (Sagan, 1973). Only by pushing the boundaries of science and of human imagination can such technological improvements arise. The paradigm of exploration must be maintained with the scouring for life amongst the heavens.


While ISPs are private firms, they perform a public service. They have a special duty in society as providers of information not to bias that information through private censorship policies. When they embark on any form of site-blocking, ISPs cease to be doing their job. Governments should maintain that ISPs act as neutral gatekeepers of information and not take up the role of ad hoc censor. Moreover this would be different from filtering adult content as that is a service that is provided if the subscriber wishes it, if this was the case with extremist content then such a block would be useless as those interested in extremist content would just opt for packages that do not restrict access.


ISPs are private service providers and should thus be able to have some filters on the most extreme spectrums of extremism  ISPs are ultimately private providers of a service. Because of this they should retain the right to restrict that service to certain groups. So long as ISPs make public their policy for what constitutes extremism so that consumers can decide if they want to opt into it, there is no real issue. There are many filters available to users to screen out certain materials already, for example internet providers offer customers the option to block adult content, [1] and this is merely an extension of this approach. Businesses must be able to sort their own ethos. Some ISPs may not opt to use this power given to them by the state, but others may not wish to carry content they consider dangerous. Because extremism is on the very fringe of speech and opinion, and because of the potential dangers that can arise from it, it is only right that the state give some ability to ISPs to block objectionable content.  [1] BBC News, “Internet providers offer parents bar on porn” 11 October 2011,


While it is true that extremists seek to undermine and bend the systems of discourse to be as favorable as possible, they are a tiny fringe minority of opinion, and the number of sites challenging their skewed narrative is far more numerous. Even young people are able to surf the web with great skill, and can easily see that the extremist view is fringe in the extreme. There is also little evidence that preventing access to some sites would make it more difficult for extremists, when large numbers of jihadi websites went offline in 2012 discussion simply moved elsewhere and leaders emphasized recruiting more people offline. [1]  [1] Zelin, A. et al. “The State of Global Jihad Online”. New America Foundation. January 2013.  /Zelin20130201-NewAmericaFoundation.pdf Pp.10, 15


ISPs are better placed than governments to make decisions on when and who to block  As the access providers for the internet ISPs are best placed to implement policies for blocking extremist sites and so are the natural option for deciding when and which sites to block. Furthermore, because the state is often slow due its extensive bureaucracy, it is less able to respond with alacrity to extremist sites popping up online. ISPs on the other hand are likely to be able to act as soon as they are informed of the existence of a website whereas working through government would simply add an extra layer of requests and orders. The ISPs blocking the site also creates a fire break between the state and the action so not giving the extremists the ammunition that state intervention might give them. Essentially, the good result of eliminating these sites from public access is accomplished faster, more effectively, and with lesser backlash than if any other agent did the blocking.


The freedom of speech can be curtailed when it represents a serious threat to society  Freedom of speech certainly may be curtailed when real harms can be shown to arise from it. Extremist sites serve as centers of dangerous dissent, whose members threaten all of society. They promote a message that is fundamentally bad speech, because it cannot it cannot be argued with and promotes aims that are so anathema to free society that its dissemination represents a true threat to people’s safety. The threat extremists represent to free society demands that their right to speech online be curtailed. [1] By blocking these sites, ISPs certainly are denying some freedom of speech, but it is a necessarily harmful form of speech that has no value in the global commons. Thus, there is essentially no real loss of valuable speech in censoring extremist websites.  [1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009.


Denying extremists their right to speak threatens everyone’s freedom of speech. It is essential in a free society that people should be able to freely express their views without fear of reprisal, however extreme or unsavory their views are. If you value free speech you must be willing to defend that right for everyone, even for those you find repugnant.


Putting the power to censor the internet, no matter how stringent or specific the guidelines, into the hands of a private organization is misguided. It is the state not individual ISPs who are needed to assess how dangerous a site is, whether it is actually promoting extremism, and ultimately make a decision as to whether a site needs to be blocked. The ISPs may end up being the actors that implement the policy but it has to be government that decides which websites to block and why. This also means that the decision would be much more centralised. Leaving this decision to the discretion of individual ISPs will mean that some websites will be blocked on some ISPs and not on others. Only government can ensure that there is consistency.


Extremist groups will always find ways to organize direct actions, be it via in-person meetings, furtive use of social networking tools, or even by using untraceable black sites online that ISPs cannot block because they cannot see them. The result of blocking these views from the public internet only serves to push the extremists further underground.


It makes it more difficult for extremists to organize and spread their message when blocked  The ISPs are the gatekeepers of information. When the internet places no moral judgments on content and the ISPs let all information through without commentary, it lends an air of permissiveness to the beliefs put forward, that they are held by reasonable people. The internet is a great tool for education, but also one that can be used to sow misinformation and extreme rhetoric. Extremist groups have been able to use the internet to a remarkable extent in promoting their beliefs and recruiting new members. Worse still, the administrators of these extremist sites are able to choke of things like dissenting commenters, giving the illusion that their view is difficult, or even impossible to reasonably challenge. In doing so they create an echo chamber for their ideas that allows them to spread and to affect people, particularly young people susceptible to such manipulation. The best example of this activity is in the international jihadist community and its reaching out to people in the West. Young disaffected Muslims have received an introduction to militant Islamism from sites often based abroad, but also some domestically, increasing the number of believers in an extreme, militant form of that religion. [1] By denying these people a platform on the internet, ISPs are able to not only make a moral stance that is unequivocal, but also to choke off access to new members who can be saved by never seeing the negative messages.  [1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009.


Blocking these sites makes it more difficult for extremist groups to coordinate extremist action in the real world  The greatest fear people have about extremist groups is not their rhetoric, but the actions the rhetoric precipitates. Extremists have proven adept at setting up basic websites through which to build communities to organize and coordinate extreme actions. This means in the most limited form the coordinating of extremist demonstrations and rallies, but also violent and terrorist actions. The best example of this is As-Sahab, al-Qaeda’s media arm, which has used an extensive web presence to galvanize supporters and to coordinate terrorist attacks. [1] In using the tools of the mass media extremists have succeeded in bringing supporters to their cause, people who are often geographically diffuse, into a close community capable of action and disruption that harms all citizens. If blocking these websites entirely ISPs would pose a significant barrier to these extremist groups organising. Even more damaging to these networks in the long terms would be the drop in recruitment due to a reduction in their reach. ISPs can significantly hamper these organizations from ever embarking on serious violent actions, and from coalescing in the first place by denying them their most effective springboard. The most important effect is in the prevention of radicalization in the first place. Preventing, or at least hampering access to extremist materials serves to keep impressionable, swayable people from experiences that might turn them to extremism. [2]  [1] Kaplan, E. “Terrorists and the Internet”. Council on Foreign Relations. 8 January 2009.   [2] Silber, M. and Bhatt, A., “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat” The New York City Police Department, 2007.  p.83


The ISPs would not be defining the parameters of what constitutes extremism; they would simply be interpreting the parameters that are given to them by government. They do not need to gauge the extent of the harm from a site simply determine whether it falls within the kind of site they are to be blocking. There would be no expectation that the ISPs would need to work out complex cost-benefit analyses. ISPs, as the purveyors of the internet are perfectly capable of policing their own service, and are well-placed to do so because they manage the software that feeds the internet service. Furthermore, as private agents providing a service, they retain the right to alter the extent of that service if they see fit to do so.


Freedom of speech is important, but must be curtailed when people are threatened. Extremists are a very real threat because their messages and actions galvanize people to take violent, disruptive actions against the state and its citizens. ISPs have a right, and even a responsibility to block extremist websites if it is written into the contract when a user purchases the service. When people opt into an ISP they accept the parameters of the service, so their freedom is not being limited by the blocking of extremist content as they have already accepted that extremist websites are not a part of the access package they bought.


ISPs should be required to maintain Net Neutrality  The internet is such a great thing because it is a free market of ideas in which all beliefs can be submitted for the scrutiny of the global online community. Debate online and rational argument serves as a major check on the extreme views of the political fringe. By maintaining net neutrality in the provision of internet and not blocking websites, ISPs allow this process of the exchange and scrutinizing of ideas on which liberal democratic society relies. [1] A neutral stance upholds the highest principles of the freedom, and allows people to feel safe in the veracity and representativeness of the internet content they are provided, and unafraid of artificially constructed bias.  [1] Seythal, T. “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to Five Years”. The Washington Post. 15 February 2007.


Censorship provides a propaganda victory to its targets  By denying people the ability to access sites set up by extremists, ISPs serve to increase extremists’ mystique and thus the demand to know more about the movement and its beliefs. When the public appears to oppose something so vociferously that it is willing to have its internet provider set aside the normal freedoms usually taken as granted, people begin to take notice. There are always groups of individuals that wish to set themselves up as oppositional to the norms of society, to transgress against its mores and thus challenge what they see to be a constraining system. [1] When extremist beliefs are afforded this mystique of extreme transgression, it serves to encourage people, particularly young, rebellious people to seek out the group and even join it. Such has been the case of young, disaffected Muslims in Europe, and the United Kingdom in particular. These young people feel discriminated against by the system and seek to express their anger in the public sphere. Islamists have been able to capitalize on this disaffection in their recruitment and have become all the more attractive since their sites have come under attack by the UK government. [2] By allowing free expression and debate, many people would be saved from joining the forces of extremism.  [1] Gottfried, Ted. Deniers of the Holocaust: Who They Are, What They Do, Why They Do It. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century Books, 2001.  [2] Jowitt, T. “UK Government Prepares to Block Extremist Websites”. Tech Week Europe. 9 June 2011.


Blocking extremists will make anti-terrorism surveillance more difficult as the organizations go underground  A major risk with any extremist organization is that its members, when put under significant legal pressure, will go underground, or find other means of communicating, or use any ISPs that not blocking extremist content. The power of ISPs, or the state for that matter, to actually stop the development of extremist networks is limited, as they will be able still to organize in secret, or even semi-publicly, via social networks and hidden websites that evade detection by the censors. As Mark Burgess, director of the World Security Institute warns ““too much focus on closing down websites could also be counter-productive, since it likely forces terrorist websites to go underground to the so-called ‘deep’ or hidden web.” [1]  Terrorist groups visible profile would be blunted, but it would not guarantee any positive gains in terms of stamping down on the number of extremists. Indeed, when extremists are driven from public channels it will be ever harder for the government to keep track of their doings and of their leaders. The result of this censorship is a more careful organization that now has a sense of victimhood against the society that censors it, which it can use to encourage even more extreme acts from its members and can spin to its advantage during recruitment efforts. By leaving them in the open extremists feel more comfortable acting within the confines of the law and are thus less dangerous, even if they are more visible.  [1] Andrews, S., “The dark side of the web”, PC Pro, 9 March 2010,


ISPs are not well placed to make judgments on what constitutes extremism  ISPs are businesses, not scholars or governments. They do not have the expertise to effectively define the parameters of what constitutes extremism or when a certain site is such, and cannot gauge the extent of damage the site is having. If governments give the power to ISPs to take down extremist sites they are giving these companies the ability to dissipate the freedom of the internet on the basis of its own judgment. [1] That is a very dangerous power to give the agents that are the gatekeepers of information to the people. Even if the state sets guidelines for ISPs to follow, it will be difficult to police their decisions effectively and will set the dangerous precedent that service providers should have a degree of power over what content citizens can consume. The ISPs also face the risk of legal challenge by groups blocked that claim to not be advocates of extremism at all so burdening the ISPs with long and costly court battles which would effectively be being fought on behalf of the government. Ultimately private actors cannot be given the authority of the public censor.  [1] Mitchell, S. “BT Resists Move to Make ISPs Block Extremist Content”. PC Pro. 7 February 2012.


While some people might be enticed by the mystique of extremism as transgressors, far more people will be put off by the positive statement of denying them their favored platform from which to speak. There will always be extremists, but their views must always be challenged and their influence curtailed wherever it is found


Everyone, even extremists, deserve their freedom of expression protected  No matter how distasteful, or extreme, their opinions may be, everyone should have the right to voice them freely and publicly. That is the very essence of a free society. When groups presume to judge good speech from bad, and to shut off the channel by which the designated bad speech may flow, it abrogates its duty to protect the rights of all. When ISPs do this, which they do when they block sites they designate as extremist, they rob the people of their fundamental role as the final arbiters of acceptable speech in the marketplace of ideas, taking that power unto themselves without any form of democratic or moral mandate. Such a state of affairs is anathema to the continuation of a free society. [1] Speech can be legally curtailed only when there is a very real and manifest harm arising from it. But that is not the case here, where the participants are few and scattered, and those who would take exception to what the extremists have to say can easily opt out online. When extremists try to organize terrorist action online, then the government should step into protect its citizens. That duty does not fall to the ISPs.  [1] Chomsky, Noam. “His Right to Say it”. The Nation. 28 February 1981.


Forcing extremists underground can only serve the cause of justice. With them out of the spotlight they are less likely to drag in new recruits among casual, open-minded internet-goers. Underground they are less visible, less legitimate-seeming, and less likely to be able to build an organization capable of violent action.


Taking a neutral stance is a tacit endorsement of the validity of the message being spread as being worthy of discussion. Extremism does not deserve its day in court, even if the outcome were a thumping victory for reason and moderation. Besides, the nature of extremists is that they are not amenable to being convinced by reason or argument. Their beliefs are impervious to facts, and that is why debate is a pointless exercise except to give them a platform by which to spread their message, organize, and validate themselves to a wider audience.


Many other things such as radios within cars are just as distracting as mobile phones. Although it is easy for police and prosecutors to prove that a mobile phone was in use during a particular period of time, it is difficult to monitor the use of mobile phones in most situations. Enforcing a ban on mobiles would be as impractical as a ban on arguing with a spouse.  Further, the point of the ban on mobile phones is to minimise distractions. However, a simple ban on mobile phones is likely to create a false sense of security among road users.  Objects similar to cell phones are not subject to bans, despite the fact that they might be distracting as well. For example, a tablet PC in the passenger seat would not be under this ban, but could easily be as distracting. This false sense of security could practically cause drivers to be less conscious of distractions and thus hurt in the long run. Whilst the law might incorporate these bans into the system, the prevalent message that will get to the people will typically be centred on a mobile phone ban. This is because mobile phones are the single most prevalent item that would be banned under the proposition. As such, even though the law covers all distracting goods, it might still breed complacency in people, causing them to ignore other items in the car that might be distracting and assume that they are legitimate. [1]  [1] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. “Ban Cell phones In Cars?” Cato.org 29/12/2000


Cell Phones are worse than other distractions  Cell phones in cars, unlike a variety of other distractions, can be regulated easily. They are an object which can easily be identified, and with phone bills it is possible to find out if a person is lying when they are caught for using cell phones in cars. As such the fact that other distractions exist, even if they are as harmful as cellphones, is no reason to not to ban their use.  Further, other sources of potential distraction, such as passengers or car radios, may provide a net gain in utility to road users and other stakeholders in mass transit systems. Being able to carry multiple people in cars for example helps society through a reduction in carbon emissions as well as simply through a reduction in traffic. To take this argument further, there are many people who cannot drive but require use of cars. For example, children might require their parents to drive them to school. Car radios are somewhat more controversial and principally if they prove to be as bad a distraction as a mobile phone then proposition would have no problem with banning them. However, things such as news and traffic updates are probably more useful to a driver than the use of mobile phones. Whilst they may be distracting, given the huge benefit they cause for society it is legitimate for them to be allowed.  Even if the benefit that they confer is the same as that of phones however, it is legitimate within our mechanism that we would ban them as well if required. [1]  [1] “Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.” The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008


Some studies have placed the economic cost of a ban on cell phones in cars at around $25 billion in total economic losses, including deaths and injuries set to cost $4.6 billion. [1]  The reason for this is explained in the first opposition counterargument. Being able to call and manage business on the fly is a valuable convenience, given the frantic nature of competitive business in the world today. As such, more transactions at a faster rate leader to a much more powerful economy. [2]  [1] “Editorial: No Strong Case for Ban on Driving With Cell Phones.” Hlbr.com 16/07/2002  [2] ibid


Cell Phones Are a Public Health Hazard  Cell phone use within cars is consistently linked with an increased chance of an accident. This is because if a driver only has a single hand on the wheel he lacks the ability to control the car properly. Further, with both hands free and normal sets, the driver has their hearing incredibly impaired by the phone call, reducing their ability to react to certain hazards. Dialling the phone itself results in an even worse outcome as it takes the concentration of the driver away more, by forcing them to look at the phone instead of the road. Estimates indicate that such phone use has led to the death of 2,600 drivers annually in the U.S.  Further, having a cell phone in the car and fumbling for it when it rings often causes accidents due to the distraction that it presents, firstly psychologically because of the noise going off, secondly due to the fact that both hands again would not be on the steering wheel to control the car. [1]  [1] “Editorial: Cellphone ban long overdue.” The Dominion Post. 12/06/2008


Firstly, it has been found by some studies that cell phone use does not have a statistically significant impact in the reduction of car wrecks. [1] This might be plausible because being able to call ahead to work for example and tell them that you will be late reduces the chance that people will speed on the roads. It also reduces the chance that you will attempt to weave between traffic to increase your speed even where acceleration might not be possible.  Further, given the societal benefits from cell phone use in cars, such as better organisation for the entire population, it seems that a ban on the use of cell phones should not be implemented because the cost of doing so is too great when compared to the benefits allowing phones would confer. [2]  [1] Paul Tetlock, Jason Burnett and Robert Hahn. "Ban Cell Phones In Cars?". Cato.org. December 29, 2000   [2] Tetlock, Paul. Burnett, Jason. Hahn, Robert. “Ban Cell phones In Cars?” Cato.org 29/12/2000


Cell Phone Use is not necessary in vehicles.  In the past the economy has not had to deal with mobile phones in cars and has been fine without their use in cars. There is no great loss in liberty or freedom when you are unable to make a mobile phone call. In fact, if you do have a pressing need to make a call, all you need do is pull over and park the vehicle, which is often not a great problem.  Further, people adjust and will adjust to the inability to use phones in cars. When the restriction was implemented in California, people were simply able to give up their phones because it emerged that they were not truly necessary. [1]  [1] “Editorial: Cell phone law worth pain.” Examiner. 3/07/2008


Conversations of any kind (with or without the involvement of the hands) impair concentration and reactions in braking tests. For some reason the brain treats a telephone conversation differently from talking to a passenger, perhaps because the passenger is also aware of possible road hazards in a way the telephone caller cannot be and so makes less demands upon the driver in terms of concentration at critical moments. In any case, voice activated technology is often unreliable, risking drivers trying to use it getting frustrated and losing concentration. It would be inconsistent to ban one sort of mobile phone while allowing the other sort, which can be just as lethal. Therefore, hands-free mobile phone use while driving should also be banned.  Further, "Some researchers, in fact, fear that the new law may cause more traffic accidents, not fewer, because they envision more distractions for many motorists. When ring tones chime and drivers scramble to find their newly purchased headsets -- or, alternatively, scan the roadsides for police enforcing the new ban -- their attention, already stretched, will be further taxed. [1]  [1] Healy, Melissa. “Hands-Free cellphone use while driving won’t make the roads safe, studies show. Why? Brain Overload.” 30/06/2008


The logical extent of opposition’s argument is a strongly libertarian society that does not legislate on almost any issue because it fears taking away people’s ability to choose.  It is important to note that when someone causes a death through ignorant driving they have resulted in the dehumanisation of a person through the removal of their ability to choose.  However, more so, the resulting society where people are free to do what they want ignores the fact that often people lack full information to make their decisions in an informed way. It also fails to understand that as time goes on people often regret decisions that they once made. As such, people are often happy to and do make the choice to give up some of their freedoms and allow the state to make those decisions for them.  Given then that people consent to having the “humanity” taken away from them, it seems legitimate that the state can make decisions that they might not immediately agree with, under the assumption that the state, as a composite of a large number of different people has a level of oversight that the individual doesn’t.  The state has the advantage of being able to take a step back and have a broader perspective. Individuals will make decisions that impact them in a positive way but this does not mean that those decisions will not have a negative wider impact on society. The state uses this broader perspective under the mandate to protect society as a whole looking at what is best for the group not the individual.


The Ban is Unenforceable  This is especially true of hands-free phones, where accused motorists could simply claim to be singing along to the radio or talking to themselves. In any case, the widespread introduction of speed cameras in many countries, and an increased public fear of violent crime have led to the redeployment of the traffic police who would be needed to enforce such laws. [1]  [1] Miller, Craig. “Laws Limiting Car-Phone use Tough to Enforce.” NPR. 08/2007


Hands Free Phones Are not Dangerous  Hands-free cell phones are sufficiently safe on the road. These allow drivers to communicate freely without taking their hands off the controls or their eyes off the road. Effectively there is no difference between talking to someone on a hands-free mobile, and holding a conversation with a passenger next to you; in fact, the latter is more dangerous as you may be tempted to turn your head to directly address the passenger.  Further, allowing the use of hands free sets has been shown to reduce fatalities, especially in adverse weather conditions through drivers being able to report their status to their loved ones and the local authorities should things become too difficult for them to handle. [1]  [1] Stuckey, Mike. “Hands-free phones are lifesavers, study says.” MSNBC. 13/5/2008


The State Does Not Have the Authority To Limit Citizens in This Way  The state places rules upon its citizens for the overall betterment of society. However, whenever possible the state also affords citizens liberty.  This is the case because the state sees that when people are free to do what they want they are able to make better decisions for themselves and further are able to interact with the state better. They do this because they feel that the state is allowing them to make their own decisions and as such the state is showing its trust in its citizens. This bond of trust between the state and the citizens as well as the state giving the citizens their own responsibilities means that citizens respect the state for the fact that it does not limit them.  To examine this from a point of view that does not rely on moral consequentialism and a utility based principle, it is possible to say that the state should afford people liberty and freedom because the starting point of any rational moral calculus should be the admission that an individual is the best judge of what is in his own interest. To not give people choice is ultimately an idea that dehumanises people. As such, the only time where freedoms should truly be restricted is when allowing the freedom results in a greater level of dehumanisation among the people. So for example, we prevent murder because allowing people to kill one another results in allowing some people to entirely remove other people’s ability to choose on purpose.


New laws would be enforceable, as billing records will show whether a phone was in use at the time. Improving camera technology may also allow the automatic detection of drivers breaking laws against mobile phone use at the wheel. In any case, just because a law is not completely enforceable, it does not follow that it should be scrapped.


Humans are more liability than asset when it comes to space travel. While humans can think outside the box more readily than machines, developments in cognitive science and computer design have resulted in ever more competent computers that are gaining more and more the ability to solve problems on their own. Furthermore, humans are physically fragile; in the event of even slight damage to a spacecraft, all humans on board could be killed. They are also susceptible to health risks in the form of radiation damage and muscle and bone loss due to the zero gravity conditions of space. [1] Unmanned ships are far more capable of surviving the dangers of space, and of completing missions successfully.  [1] Ad Hoc Committee on the Solar System Radiation Environment. "Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision of Space Exploration." National Research Council.


Some activities in space require human dexterity of both mind and body to succeed  Space exploration and research have resulted many major advances in science and technology. Everything from Velcro to more efficient and powerful computers has come out of the space program. Many of these developments arose due to the focus on the human element of space travel; scientists had to focus on the very real challenge of getting humans into space and back home safely. [1] Furthermore, there are some experiments that can only be conducted in space and that require the dexterity and problem-solving skills of humans. While robots are very good at carrying out pre-designed programs and collecting data, their ability to think critically and engage in problem solving is quite limited. In order to get the most of space travel and exploration, humans must be present to add their critical thinking and physical capacity to missions. For technology to continue to develop through the space program the paradigm of exploration must be maintained. This can only be done through manned space flight.  [1] Coalition for Space Exploration. “Benefits of Space”. 2010.


While unmanned space exploration is not as romantic as manned space flight, it is more functional. Exploring space is extremely expensive and governments have to consider the practicalities of exploration more than the glamour. Scientifically, little is gained by manned flight over unmanned flight. In terms of increasing interest in space flight, it is questionable whether states encouraging interest in space exploration is the best thing at all. They could simply use space exploration, especially exciting manned voyages, as means of distracting public attention from domestic problems. It is better for people to be focused on life on this planet than on the mysteries of space.


Humanity in many ways defines itself through exploration, and space is the next logical frontier  Human history is one of exploration. Since the earliest days of Homo sapiens, people have striven to look beyond the horizon, to see what is out there. It was this impetus that led humans out of the small corner of Africa where the species was born, to see new places, to find new fertile lands to explore. It was this impetus also that led the first European explorers to traverse the great waters of the Atlantic Ocean in search of new trade routes, braving the very real risks of storm, disease, piracy, and fatal disorientation, as well as the perceived risks of sea serpents and other monsters awaiting unwary travelers. When the surface of the world was finally mapped, people set their sights on exploration of the sea floor, to climb the highest mountains, and finally to reach the stars themselves, all because they were challenges, unknowns to be made known. [1] Mankind’s place is among the stars. Simply perusing pictures of space sent back by unthinking, unfeeling robots would never be enough to satisfy humanity’s curiosity. Governments should not try to slow Man’s progress to the stars but should promote and fund it, for to do otherwise is to end part of what it is to be human.  [1] Dick, Steven. “Why We Explore”. NASA, 2009.


Curiosity and the will to explore certainly is a fundamental part of the human condition. But the human body has natural limitations that technology cannot overcome. While artifice can go a long way to making places suitable for the frail human form, it can only go so far. Manned space flight is extremely expensive, costing the US government, the primary investor in space technologies tens of billions of dollars every year, yet there remains no clear plan for humans to return to the moon, let alone Mars and the rest of the solar system. [1] Exploration beyond the solar system remains a pipe dream. The laws of physics likewise seem to make the possibility of human exploration beyond the solar system nigh impossible. Other stars are simply too far away for a human to reach. The reality simply is that manned space flight is too costly and will likely never find application beyond Sol.  [1] Kaku, Michio. “The Cost of Space Exploration”, Forbes, 2009.


The probability of any cosmic collision or other destructive event is extremely low and not worth thinking about. In any event, manned space flight would not be viable for the purpose of saving humanity from a dying Earth for many years, if ever. Governments and people should focus their attention on developing this planet, rather than worrying too much about finding new ones to inhabit.


Manned space flight excites the human imagination more than unmanned missions, allowing members of nations everywhere to see themselves as part of the same human race  People do not get excited when they see robots launched into space; there is no romance or adventure in a computer attached to a rocket. To enflame people’s imaginations and enthusiasm for space travel, real-life astronauts must be involved. Furthermore, it is harder for people around the world to develop a sense of connection to an unmanned space flight. Manned missions, however, can become ambassadors of all humanity. In no endeavor have scientists from around the world more readily worked together than in the development of the International Space Station and other space-related enterprises. Looking beyond the Earth serves to unite humanity in a way nothing else can. [1] When the Apollo astronauts first transmitted images of the Earth back to the waiting masses, the sight of that tiny blue-white marble suspended in the vast void profoundly changed the way many people viewed themselves. There was for the first time a sense of oneness, of citizenship of this island Earth. In the exploration of space, astronauts are not just citizens of their home countries, but are emissaries of the entire human race. In this way space exploration actually gives mankind a transcendent purpose, promoting peace and understanding among nations that no amount of conventional diplomacy can create.  [1] Van de Hulst, H. “International Space Cooperation”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 17(5). 1961


Manned space flight, and the new worlds it would serve to unlock, are essential to the long-term survival of humanity  The Earth has suffered a number of catastrophic events in its history. The galaxy is permeated with giant meteors like the one that struck the Earth 16 million years ago, which succeeded in wiping out the dinosaurs and precipitating an ice age. [1] Other cosmic risks exist as well, such as the threat of deadly radioactive waves given off by supernovae that can span the gulfs between stars and scorch planets many light-years away. Likewise, risks closer to home could prove equally destructive. Intense solar flairs from our sun could scorch a whole side of the planet. While all these occurrences are very rare, they remain possibilities, and should any of them ever occur, it could prove the end of humanity, and even life on Earth. In order to guarantee the survival of the human race, manned space flight must be made viable. One day it may prove necessary to leave this cradle of life in pursuit of a new home, and it would be wise to invest in developing the technology to do so rather than to wait until it is too late and only be able to watch as mankind’s doom arrives.  [1] Gerakines, Perry. “What is the Chance of an Asteroid Hitting Earth and How Do Astronomers Calculate It?” 2005.


Certainly there are many concerns on Earth that must be addressed if mankind hopes to survive. Pollution and climate change are real threats that deserve a great deal of attention from all governments around the world, since everyone is affected. This attention, however, does not need to exclude from the agenda the development and propagation of manned space flight. Rather, states can focus on more than one science-based issue at a time. It is rather disingenuous, in fact, to suggest that it is a matter of one or the other. Furthermore, the international unity created by manned space exploration, binding people not as members of separate nations, but as members of the human race, can serve as a means of promoting unified action on issues affecting the whole planet. Space exploration can thus actually help to ameliorate coordination problems between states in their efforts to deal with global issues. Clearly, when people think of themselves as citizens of the world they are more ready to think globally and consider issues affecting other countries. Space exploration is very real means of promoting such thinking.


The paradigm of exploration is essential to the progression of technology. Space is the last great frontier and represents the perfect object on which to construct and maintain this paradigm. The costs of manned space flight are great, but the core human drive to explore can only be satisfied by supporting it. Furthermore, the spin-off benefits of space exploration are numerous. Computers have become more compact and more powerful due to research conducted under the aegis of space exploration. Even things as ubiquitous and central to everyday life as Velcro, Teflon, and ballpoint pens find their origin in space exploration. [1] The dream of exploration should not be killed for the sake of saving money.  [1] Coalition for Space Exploration. “Benefits of Space”. 2010.


Manned space flight is a technological dead end  Manned space flight appears to have little practical use. While its supporters talk about traveling to other planets, the technology simply does not exist, nor may ever exist, to send humans to worlds that could be even potentially habitable. It may be possible to send humans to Mars, or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, but doing so would have little value other than for the sake of planting boots on alien soil. [1] Any research worth conducting on planets within the solar system can be done just as well by robots, at considerably less expense. The laws of physics seem to show that it is impossible for ships to travel at or past the speed of light, meaning any journey to planets beyond the solar system would take centuries at least. It is unlikely, for this reason, that manned space travel will ever be a practically useful endeavor. Research should be put into technology that can actually lead humanity somewhere. There is nowhere for humans to go in space that robots cannot, and nowhere worth the cost of their going.  [1] Leath, Audrey. “Should Mars Be Human Space Flight Objective?”. American Institute of Physics 2003.


The focus of states and individuals should be on fixing the problems of this planet, not with exploring other ones  The Earth is faced with many problems. Global warming, the destruction of ecosystems, rising sea levels, pollution, and resource depletion are all issues weighing heavily on states and the international community as a whole. Individuals and governments need to rally and fight these growing terrestrial problems. The resources poured into manned space travel that will likely serve no lasting purpose would be better spent in combating the hundreds of serious issues facing the planet today. Space exploration serves only as a distraction, keeping people’s minds off the pressing concerns of the Earth. Furthermore, governments can use manned space flight as a means of distraction quite deliberately. It is often easier to devote attention and resources to headline-grabbing endeavors like putting a man on the moon or on Mars than to address concerns like global warming, which requires extensive international coordination to a degree rarely reached in history. Governments may find utility in keeping people focused on such grand projects while doing comparably little to affect change where it is direly needed. Clearly, humanity’s concerns should be focused wholly on the survival of its home world, not on exploring worlds that might not even exist, and almost certainly cannot sustain human life.


Manned space exploration is prohibitively expensive while providing limited spin-off benefits:  Space exploration costs enormous amounts of money. The United States spends tens of billions of dollars every year on its space program, and the Chinese and European space agencies are seeking to catch up technologically. Overall, the amount of money wasted is astronomical. Even if manned space flight were a desirable goal, the cost is far too great. Unmanned space flight offers the same benefits at far less expense, since unmanned vessels weigh less than those needed to carry humans, and do not require the expensive and sophisticated life-support technology necessary to sustain human life in the harsh wilderness of space. [1] Furthermore, the benefits accrued from spin-off technology resulting from space exploration are generally overstated. NASA, for example, had claimed that protein crystals could be grown in zero gravity that could fight cancer, as well as numerous other claims of benefits. Most of these benefits have never materialized. With all the billions of dollars wasted on manned space flight, most of the spin-off technologies could likely have been created independently, given the resources, and probably at lower overall expense.  [1] Kaku, Michio. “The Cost of Space Exploration”. Forbes. 2009.


While the technology is still in its infancy there is still much lending itself to the value of interstellar travel. The Earth cannot sustain life forever, and the risk of a catastrophic event such as a giant asteroid impact is always real. [1] Developing technology that can sustain humans aboard spacecraft for several generations as well terra-form potential new homes are of the utmost importance to lasting human survival. Many things in the realm of science fiction today can be made reality given the will and resources. It is essential that humanity dedicate itself to the cause of manned space exploration, for the sake of its will to explore, as well as its will to survive.  [1] Gerakines, Perry. “What is the Chance of an Asteroid Hitting Earth and How Do Astronomers Calculate It?”. Scientific American. 2005.


State-sponsored space programs can utilize the infrastructure built up in the last half-century, and therefore be substantially cheaper  Since Sputnik was launched in 1957, the space race has given rise to an infrastructure, particularly in the United States and Russia, which can be exploited for economies of scale. The cost of developing shuttles and training astronauts is far cheaper in Cape Carnarvon where the necessary equipment and skills lie to do so. Furthermore, the International Space Station costs upwards of $100 billion, however it serves as a terminal where shuttles can thereafter be pointed to any corner of the universe1. The potential therefore is to save costs by using the existence of the ISS as a stepping stone to elsewhere. To not use fifty years of space development and technology is to render all that investment meaningless. 1 Kaku, M. (2009, July 16) The Cost of Space Exploration. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from Forbes


If only it were true. The typical shuttle mission to the International Space Station costs $500-700 million. Private individuals, space tourists, have managed it for just $20 million a head1. Therefore, there is little in the argument that the existing space infrastructure is driving costs down. Furthermore, whilst the ISS has been justified as a terminal for the shuttles, the shuttles themselves have been justified as means to reach the space shuttle; a circular argument that offers little hope to the space explorer. Moreover, despite over fifty years of investment, NASA specifically has maintained a shuttle program at the expense of new materials, new fuels and innovative concepts1. As such, the technology has not advanced significantly since the original missions to the Moon between 1969 and 1972. The infrastructure, in this case, appears to have been more of a hindrance and intellectual barrier to development and cost-cutting than an aid. 1 Kaku, M. (2009, July 16) The Cost of Space Exploration. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from Forbes


Space exploration gives back more than it takes from the treasury. Dr. Joan Vernikos, a former head of NASA Life Sciences, argues ‘economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment…royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA.' Furthermore, as Keith Cowing points out, the funding for space exploration is insignificant compared to our other discretionary spending: ‘Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol (in 2006); We spend $10 million a month in Iraq; all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year." Cowing also points out the fact that ‘the money is spent on the earth – it creates jobs and provides business to companies, just as any other government program does’ (Dubner, 2008). [1  [1] Dubner, S. J. (2008, January 11). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Freakonomics


Since the "historic handshake in space" when a US Apollo and Soviet Soyuz capsules docked in 1975, the two countries have in fact grown increasingly close. This relationship involves sharing technology (which is almost all 'dual use' i.e. it could be used for military purposes as well as civilian, thus requiring a high degree of trust), scientific knowledge and working side-by-side to build and support the ISS. With the involvement of the 11 member states of the European Space Agency as well as Canada, Japan and Brazil in the project, space is one of the few spheres where governments have been able to put aside their differences in pursuit of something more fundamentally important to humanity.


The cost of space exploration exceeds the positive benefits  NASA during the 1990s spent over a third of its budget simply keeping the ISS manned and the Space Shuttle working1; it will now spend $60 million per seat to use Russian transport to the ISS2. The vast majority of its spending on scientific research comes through ground based research, telescopes and unmanned missions. China has made no claims that there is a scientific benefit to its manned mission and nor has Russia in recent years. There are few experiments so important that they can justify the huge cost needed to allow them to be carried out by humans in zero gravity. NASA made a lot of noise about growing zero-gravity protein crystals as a potential cure for cancer when it was trying to justify building the ISS but has since dropped the claims as experiments have shown the claims were overstated. There are few experiments so important that they can justify the huge cost needed to allow them to be carried out by humans in zero gravity. 1 New York Times. (1995, March 6). Is NASA Among the Truly Needy? Retrieved May 19, 2011, from New York Times 2 Stein, K. (2011, May 18). Critical juncture for U.S. human spaceflight. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from The Examiner:


Space exploration takes resources away from more worthy causes  High ideals are all well and good, but not when they come at the expense of the present. Our world is marred by war, famine, and poverty; billions of people are struggling simply to live from day to day. Our dreams of exploring space are a luxury they cannot afford; U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman stated in the wake of President Bush's 2004 proposals that money was needed 'right here on Earth to give health care that's affordable to everybody, to improve our education system and do better on veterans' benefits and homeland security.'1 Instead of wasting our time and effort on macho prestige projects such as the space programme, we must set ourselves new targets. The money spent on probes to distant planets would be better invested in the people of our own planet. A world free from disease, a world where no-one lives in hunger, would be a truly great achievement. 1 Pop, V. (2004, January 19). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Space Daily:


The 'space race' fuels nationalistic sentiment and antagonism  Sending humans into space or to other planets so that they can erect the flag of a particular nation is a distinctly nationalistic act and one that is likely to create aggressive 'races' in the future just as it has before. China's manned program is openly intended to challenge the US dominance of space for the Communist regime's huge propaganda benefit. George W. Bush's pledge to boost spending on NASA and to restart the manned mission to Mars program was a direct response. This is damaging not only because of the potential for space race conflicts to escalate into greater international hostility, but also because of the way such races could result in the militarization of space, thereby turning something which should be preserved for the common good of humankind into a neo-colonial battlefield.


The positive benefits of space exploration are innumerable and profound. As Joan Vernikos describes, '43 countries now have their own observing or communications satellites in Earth orbit.' Such satellites provide the G.P.S that directs our transport, meteorological forecasts, global monitoring of the environment, as well as surveillance and intelligence for our national security1. Furthermore, the common misconception that NASA has a huge budget is just that; in 2007, the NASA budget of $16.3 billion was dwarfed by the overall G.D.P of $13 trillion1. 1 Dubner, S. J. (2008, January 11). Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from Freakonomics:


The complications in the legal framework are not reason to eliminate intellectual property rights. In fact, most licensing arrangements are done swiftly and amicably between firms. Intellectual property battles over licensing arrangements are the exception rather than the rule. With intellectual property, firms feel free to share openly through licensing. Without it, they will be more reticent to share anything.


The complicated legal arrangements created by intellectual property raise costs of doing business:  Many firms cannot act independently, but rather rely on the technology and systems of other firms. The complicated, and often convoluted, licensing arrangements needed by many firms to function sap resources and effort, slowing productivity and causing general economic sluggishness. In high-tech and science research firms particularly, mutual licensing pacts are needed that often slow production and advancement due to the complicated legal arrangements that must be entered into to allow firms to go about their business. For example, the recent battle over rights to computer technology between Hewlett-Packard and Oracle, which has cost both firms millions of dollars in legal fighting1. These costs are entirely mitigated in the absence of intellectual property rights, as ideas flow freely and people can go about their business without the complications of licensing. 1 Orlowski, Andrew. 2011. "Oracle and Itanic: Tech's Nastiest Ever Row?". The Register.


The cost of research and development of new products is often extremely high for firms. In order to reap a profit from their efforts, they must be able to count on the guarantee of ownership over their intellectual property. In the absence of such a guarantee, the incentive of firms to research and innovate declines substantially, resulting in a less dynamic business climate. The duplication of effort by research firms is rare in practice, and the efforts to develop spin-off products can easily become the beginning of entirely new inventive projects.


There is no such thing as intellectual property, since you cannot own an idea:  An individual's idea, so long as it rests solely in his mind or is kept safely hidden, belongs to him. When he disseminates it to everyone and makes it public, it becomes part of the public domain, and belongs to anyone who can use it. If individuals or firms want to keep something a secret, like a production method, then they should keep it to themselves and be careful with how they disseminate their product. One should not, however, expect some sort of ownership to inhere in an idea one has, since no such ownership right exists1. No one can own an idea. Thus recognizing something like a property right over intangible assets is contrary to reason, since doing so gives monopoly power to individuals who may not make efficient or equitable use of their inventions or products. Physical property is a tangible asset, and thus can be protected by tangible safeguards. Ideas do not share this right to protection, because an idea, once spoken, enters the public domain and belongs to everyone. 1 Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company.


Intellectual property slows the dissemination of essential information and products  An individual or firm with a monopoly right to the production of something may not have the ability to efficiently go about meeting demand for it. Intellectual property rights slow, or even stop the dissemination of such ideas and inventions, as it may prove impossible to sway the creator to license or to market the product. Such an outcome is deleterious to society, as with the free sharing of ideas, an efficient producer, or producers, will emerge to meet the needs of the public1. A similar harm arises from the enervating effect intellectual property rights can generate in people and firms. When the incentive is to simply rest on one's patents, waiting to for them to expire before doing anything else, societal progress is slowed. In the absence of intellectual property, firms and individuals are necessarily forced to keep innovating to stay ahead, to keep looking for profitable products and ideas. The free flow of ideas generated by the abolition of intellectual property rights will invigorate economic dynamism. Furthermore, many firms that develop and patent ideas do not share them, nor do they act upon them themselves do to their unprofitability. This has been the case with various treatments for predominantly developing world diseases, which exist but are unprofitable to distribute to where they are needed most, in part of Africa and Asia.2 With no intellectual property rights, the access to such drugs would be facilitated and producers interested in helping the sick rather than simply profiting would be able to help those in need left to die due to intellectual property. 1 Stim, Rishand. 2006. Profit from Your Idea: How to Make Smart Licensing Decisions. Berkeley: Nolo. 2 Boseley, Sarah. 2006. "Rich Countries 'Blocking Cheap Drugs for Developing World'".The Guardian.


There is no significant slowing down of the spread of information in the long run, since intellectual property generally only lasts for a short time, meaning owners have an incentive to make the most of it while they can. Besides, any small slowing down of the spread of ideas and innovations is a small price to pay for the recognition of a person's fundamental right to the product of his effort. Furthermore, licensing arrangements are becoming more and more refined to allow for the quick transfer of rights in order to meet societal demands for products. Licensing law has also begun to extend to products that producers may not wish to produce, such as medication for sick Africans, and is helping to force firms that refuse to act upon their patents to license the right to those that will.


Intellectual property rights systems create perverse incentives in firms, leading them to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same process or product, though only the first to do so may profit from it. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing intellectual property rights. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of intellectual property rights perverting incentives1. Furthermore, intellectual property rights create the problem of corporate espionage. Firms seeking to be the first to develop a new product so as to patent it will often seek to steal or sabotage the research of other competing firms so as to be the first to succeed. Without intellectual property rights, such theft would be pointless. Clearly, in the absence of intellectual property, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. "Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform"


It may be costly and sometimes ineffective to police property rights, but that does not make them less of a right. Efficiency and Justice are not the same thing. If firms feel they can benefit from fighting infringers of their intellectual property rights, it is their right to do so. The state likewise, has an obligation to protect the rights, physical and intangible, of its citizens and cannot give up on them simply because they prove difficult and costly to enforce. For the state the costs accrued by efforts to enforce intellectual property are repaid many fold by the fact that businesses feel safer to invest in them due to the perceived protections the state promises.


Firms and individuals misallocate resources trying to race others to the same goal, and spend resources stealing from one another:  Intellectual property rights systems create perverse incentives in firms, leading them to inefficiently allocate resources. One such inefficiency arises from the duplication of effort by firms seeking to develop the same process or product, though only the first to do so may profit from it. This leads to brutal races and excessive expenditure of resources to be first over the line and to monopolize the production, at least for a time. Another serious inefficiency arises in the production of similar products to existing ones, seeking to get around existing intellectual property rights. Such has been the case for years in the pharmaceutical industry, which has succeeded in curing erectile dysfunction dozens of times. An overemphasis on such spinning off of similar products is the result of intellectual property rights perverting incentives1. Furthermore, intellectual property rights create the problem of corporate espionage. Firms seeking to be the first to develop a new product so as to patent it will often seek to steal or sabotage the research of other competing firms so as to be the first to succeed. Without intellectual property rights, such theft would be pointless. Clearly, in the absence of intellectual property, markets and firms will behave more efficiently. 1 Gabb, Sean. 2005. "Market Failure and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Proposal for Reform". National Health Federation.


Costs of monitoring intellectual property rights by states and companies outweigh the benefits, and is often ineffective:  The state incurs huge costs in monitoring for intellectual property right infringement, in arresting suspected perpetrators, in imprisonment of those found guilty, even though in reality nothing was stolen but an idea that, once released to it, belonged to the public domain. The United States government, for example, projects costs of investigating intellectual property claims will cost $429 million between 2009 and 20131. Firms likewise devote great amounts of resources and effort to the development of non-duplicable products, in monitoring for infringement, and in prosecuting offenders, all of which generates huge costs and little or no return2. Furthermore, the deterrent effect to intellectual property piracy generated by all the efforts of the state and firms has proven generally minimal. This is because in many cases intellectual property rights are next to unenforceable, as the music and movie industries have learned in recent years. Only a tiny handful of perpetrators are ever caught, and though they are often punished severely in an attempt to deter future crime, it does little to stop it. Intellectual property, in many cases, simply does not work in practice; firms should move with the times and recognize they need to innovate in ways that will compensate.  1 Legal Alert. 2009. "PRO-IP Act Promises Increased Focus on IP Rights and Expanded Counterfeiting Remedies". Sutherland.  2 World Intellectual Property Organization. 2011. "Emerging Issues in Intellectual Property".


Research and development will continue, irrespective of intellectual property rights. The desire of firms to stay ahead of the competition will drive them to invest in research regardless. That their profits will be diminished by the removal of intellectual property rights is only natural and due to the fact that they will no longer have monopoly control over their intangible assets, and will thus not be able to engage in the rent-seeking behavior inherent in monopoly control of products.


While there is little cost to the government of recognizing intellectual property rights there is a big cost to those whose intellectual property is being protected. The cost of both processing and enforcement is passed on to the users who are the people who are most innovative. This is adding a cost to innovation and so making it less attractive to innovate.


The product of an individual's intellectual endeavour is the property of that individual, who deserves to profit from it  Every individual deserves to profit from his creative endeavours, and this is secured through the application of intellectual property rights. When an individual mixes his labour with capital or other resources, part of him inheres in the product that arises from his effort. This is the origin of property rights. Property rights are an unquestioned mainstay of life in all developed countries, and are an essential prerequisite for stable markets to develop and function. [1] Intellectual property rights are protected by law in much the same way as more conventional physical property, as well it should be. Individuals generating ideas and using their effort to produce an intangible good, be it a new invention, piece of replicable art, etc. have a property right on those ideas and the products that arise from them. It is the effort to produce a real good, albeit an intangible one, that marks the difference between an idea in someone's head that he does not act up, and intellectual property. Developing new inventions, songs, and brands are all very intensive endeavours, taking time, energy, and often a considerable amount of financial investment. People and firms deserve as a matter of principle to benefit from the products of the effort of creation. For this reason, stealing intellectual property is the same as stealing an actual physical product. Each is a real thing, even if one can be touched while the other is intangible in a physical sense. Often the product of intellect is the source of income of an individual; the musician who is too old to play any longer, for example, may rely entirely upon revenues generated by their intellectual property rights to survive. As a matter of principle, property rights can be assigned to intangible assets like intellectual property, and in practice they are a necessity to many people's livelihood.  [1] Fitzgerald, Brian and Anne Fitzgerald. 2004. Intellectual Property: In Principle. Melbourne: Lawbook Company.