T not an increaseA. The plan is not an increase it's creationIncrease means make greaterMeriam Webster 13 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/increaseincrease verb \in-krs, in-\ increasedincreasingDefinition of INCREASE intransitive verb1: to become progressively greater (as in size, amount, number, or intensity)2: to multiply by the production of youngtransitive verb1: to make greater : augment2 obsolete : enrichThe plan creates a whole new area of exploration / development. Increase does not include createWords and Phrases '59 vol 20A p 381Increased, as used in Wests Ann.Cal. Const. art 12, 11, providing that the stock and bonded indebtedness of corporations shall not be increased without the consent of the person holding the larger amount of the stock, does not include or apply to the first creation of bonded indebtedness. To give it such a meaning would be to inject into the provision the word create. Union Loan & Trust Co. v. Southern California Motor Road Co., 51 F 840,850

B. The affirmative interpretation is bad for debateLimits are necessary for negative preparation and clash. Adding to existing efforts provides a finite set of cases. Creation unlimits. There are limitless possibilities.Swaminathan 3 Dr K V Swaminathan, Waterfalls Institute of Technology Transfer (WITT) February 2003 Ocean Vistas http://www.witts.org/Ocean_wealth/oceanwealth_01_feb03/wista_oceanwealth_feture.htmThe oceans cover nearly two-thirds of the world's surface area and have profoundly influenced the course of human development. Indeed the great markers in mans progress around the world are in a large measure the stages in his efforts to master the oceans. Nations and people who are conscious of the almost limitless potential of the oceans. Those who have sought to comprehend its deep mysteries, processes and rhythms and have made efforts to explore and utilize its resources, stand in the van of progress, while those who have been indifferent to the critical role that oceans play in human life and its development, have remained mired in stagnation and backwardness.

C. T is voter because it's necessary for good, well-prepared debating

Heidegger

The assimilation of all resources in the standing-reserve has led to endless war endless assets for strategic war and blurred distinction between peace and warMitchell 05 Associate Professor of Philosophy at Emory College and has a PhD from Stony Brook University (Andrew J., Heidegger and Terrorism, Research in Phenomenology, Vol 35, Pgs 181-218, 2005, Proquest)//BD3. THE REALIZATION OF THE IDEALWe have already stated that technology closes the gap between subject and object, with the human becoming just another piece of the standing-reserve alongside all the rest. The abolition of distance is equally an abolition of difference, including that between the real and the ideal. For Clausewitz, this difference was a fact expressed in each of the innumerable ways that the material world failed to live up to the "smoothness" of the ideal. There is inadequate information, a change of attitude within the atmosphere of danger, questions of morale and willingness for both the troops and the general; there are coincidences, surprises, the resistance of the terrain-all of which prevent a general from simply and directly executing a war, but instead require strategizing. Strategy serves as a technical term for Clausewitz, denoting the skill of the general in best realizing the ideal situation of absolute war within the real material conditions that the battle presents. Perhaps the roughest area of friction that a general must consider is found in his/her greatest asset, the troops. Modern warfare is a matter of troop mobilization, assault, reinforcement, and defense; and for this reason, consumption of resources remained a concern for Clausewitz. The troops were the most important resource for the realization of "total" war; they were needed to negotiate the distance that yet extended between the ideal and the real. A consequence of this is that modern warfare could still concern itself with calculating and comparing casualties and losses. In an ideal situation, troops would offer no resistance and never be lost. Such is the case with war under the reign of technology.With everything available as standing-reserve, troops included, the exhaustion of resources is no longer possible. Resources are precisely in themselves replaceable, to the extent that, in being given over to replacement, even the idea of an "in itself" is already drained of reality ahead of time. There are no longer any "losses" that cannot be replaced. In other words, there is no longer any friction. All uncertainty is lost, since it is not recognized in the first place. Everything is monitored and controlled. The whole "battle" is given over to a planning that is able to incorporate everything it encounters, since it only ever encounters what is already planablc in essence, the standing-reserve. Strategy's demise is the ascendancy of planning. What this means is that war can now go on interminably, subject to no other logic or obligation than its own. Nothing can resist it. But without resistance, war must end. Peace can now go on interminably as well, subject to no other logic or obligation than its own. The logic in question for both war and peace is the logic of replacement, the obligation for each is the obligation to consume. There is no law that would supervene or subtend consumption; there is no order outside of it that could contain it. Clausewitz's ideal is realized in a manner that collapses the very distinctions that gave it birth. "War" is no longer a duel; it recognizes no authority outside of itself. The name for this new amalgam of war and peace is terrorism. Terrorism is Clausewitz's absolute war in the mirror of technology.War and peace come to complete agreement and lose their oppositional identity in the age of value and the ersatz. Without concern for resources, consumption continues untroubled, since war is a kind of "consumption of beings" no different from peace: "War no longer battles against a state of peace, rather it newly establishes the essence of peace" (GA 69: 180). The essence of peace so established is a peace that defines itself in regards to war, which binds itself inseparably to war, and which functions equivalently to war. In cither case, it is simply a matter of resource consumption and replenishment. In Clausewitzian terms, there is perhaps too much continuity or "continuation" between war and peace, "War has become a distortion of the consumption of beings which is continued in peace" (GA 7: 89/EP, 104). The peace that technology brings is nothing restful; instead it is the peace of unhindered circulation. We cannot even ask when there will be peace or when the war will end. Such a question, Heidegger specifies, cannot be answered, "not because the length of the war cannot be foreseen, but because the question itself asks for something which no longer is, since already there is no longer a war that would be able to come to a peace" (GA 7: 89/EP, 104; tm). The basic oppositions of Clausewitzian warfare are undone at this point, an undoing that includes the distinction between ideal and real.Alternativealternative being-in-the-worldThe alternative is to position oneself as a Being-in-the-world that breaks down the subject-object dichotomy DeLuca 05 -- Environmental Humanities Research Professor @ University of Utah (Kevin , "Thinking with Heidegger Rethinking Environmental Theory and Practice," Project Muse, p 67-87, https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ethics_and_the_environment/v010/10.1deluca.html) Citing the Cartesian ontology of the world as dominant, Heidegger in Being and Time works to "demonstrate explicitly not only that Descartes' conception of the world is ontologically defective, but that his Interpretation and the foundations on which it is based have led him to pass over both the phenomenon of the world and the Being of those entities within-the-world which are proximally ready-to-hand" (1962, 128). Briefly, Heidegger critiques Descartes for positing a "bare subject without a world" (1962, 192) and for relying on mathematics, which produces the sort of Reality it can grasp, thus "the kind of Being which belongs to sensuous perception is obliterated, and so is any possibility that the entities encountered in such perception should be grasped in their Being" (1962, 130). Descartes' ontology presumes the dynamic of an isolated subject grasping mathematically world as object. Arguably, it is this perspective that is at the root of the environmental crisis, for the world is reduced to an object laid out before me and I am reduced to a detached subject that has only a use-relation to a dead world.Heidegger disdains "the Cartesian approach of positing a subject one can come across in isolation" (1962, 248) and rejects the "perennial philosophical quest to prove that an 'external world' is present-at-hand" (1962, 250). Instead, Heidegger offers a different foundational starting point: "The Interpretation of the world begins, in the first instance, with some entity within-the-world, so that the phenomenon of the world in general no longer comes into view" (1962, 122). Humanity is never the isolated subject that surveys and grasps the world-as-object displayed before it. Heidegger continues: "Our investigation takes its orientation from Being-in-the-Worldthat basic state of Dasein by which every mode of its being gets co-determined" (1962, 153). Heidegger concludes: "In clarifying Being-in-the-world we have shown that a bare subject without a world never 'is' proximally, nor is it ever given"(1962, 152). Heidegger explicitly clarifies this point in response to Descartes: "If the 'cogito sum' is to serve as the point of departure for the existential analytic of Dasein, then it needs to be turned around, and furthermore its [End Page 73] content needs new ontologico-phenomenal confirmation. The 'sum' is then asserted first, and indeed in the sense that "I am in a world." As such an entity, 'I am' in the possibility of Being towards various ways of comporting myselfnamely, cogitationesas ways of Being alongside entities within the world" (1962, 254).Heidegger, then, is suggesting a Copernican revolution with respect to humanity's relation to the world, for it is never a matter of "to" but "in." Humanity is never a subject over and against or above the world apart from the world; rather, the subject is always in the world, a part of the world, and, indeed, is constituted by relations in the world. Further, in an important point that is not so clear in Being and Time but that becomes evident in later writings, "I am in the world" on earth, that Being-in-the-world is always already Being-in-the-world on earth. Earth is "that on which and in which man bases his dwelling.... Upon the earth and in it, historically man grounds his dwelling in the world.... The world grounds itself on the earth, and earth juts through world" (1993, 169, 171, 172). In displacing the subject-object dichotomy that so circumscribes environmental theory and practice, Heidegger's thought opens up a horizon of possibilities of other ways/beginnings/trajectories for environmentalism. What would it mean to approach all environmental issues from a fundamental understanding of Being-in-the-world on earth?

Japan CounterplanCounter Plan Text: The government of Japan should

Japan needs to increase environmental technology to become an environmental leaderKyodo News, 2/18/08, WWF head urges stronger leadership from Japan on climate changeLeape noted that Japanese officials have discussed halving global greenhouse gas emissions from present levels by 2050. But he emphasized that Japan must lead other industrialized nations in the setting of medium-term emissions reduction goals. Japan has yet to notably demonstrate its leadership ''the way one would expect,'' Leape said. ''We have to start emissions reduction from now and get some serious reductions, 25 to 40 percent reductions by 2020,'' Leape said. ''What we are looking for is real leadership from Japanese government toward that end'' as chair of the G-8 summit, he said.

Japanese environmental leadership is key to its soft power.Taizo Vakushiji, Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Keio University, 1994, Japan's International Agenda: Technology and the Setting for Japan's Agenda, p. 78-79If an argument based on soft resources is extended to the level of international politics, there emerges a new concept of "soft power." Joseph S. Nye. Jr.. writes. The changing nature of international politics has also made intangible forms of power more important.... Power is becoming less transferable, less coercive, and less tangible.... Cooptive power is the ability of a country to structure a situation so that other countries develop preferences or define their interests in ways consistent with its own. This power tends to arise from such resources as cultural and ideological attraction as well as rules and institutions of international regimes. The United States has more cooptive power than other countries. 7 Whether the U.S. is a soft-power giant is worth debating, but the importance of soft power itself is not questionable. How can Japan gain soft power? Currently. Japan has neither an internationally acknowledged ideology nor a worldwidepenetrating culture. But as Richard Rosecrance puts it. Japan is a trading state. Moreover, she is a technological state, top, where two conspicuous technologies, namely manufacturing technology and environmental and/or energy-saving technology, enjoy world preeminence. Among these three kinds of Japanese preeminence, trading power and manufacturing power are classified as types of hard power, so that they would not help Japan elevate its soft-power capability in the post-Cold War era. Therefore, let us focus on the third area. that is, environmental and/or energy saving technologies. Today, environmental issues such as deforestation, greenhouse effects, ozone holes, desertification, and the loss of biological diversity are becoming more and more globalized. As Jessica Tuchman Mathews puts it. The assumptions and institutions that have governed international relations in the postwar era are a poor fit with new realities. Environmental strains that transcend national borders are already beginning to break down the sacred boundaries of national sovereignty, previously rendered porous by the information and communication revolutions and the instantaneous global movement of financial capital. The once sharp dividing line between foreign and domestic policy is blurred, forcing governments to grapple in international forums with issues that were contentious enough in the domestic arena.' Japan is a leading country in both environmental legislation and technology. Admittedly. Japan is not a political superstate. But even as a political dwarf, Japan might be able to gain political leverage if it mote actively engages in the international politics of the global environment, departing from hitherto passive attitudes of following a conservative course taken by the United States, the United Kingdom, and other industrialized countries. It is quite noteworthy that Germany recently showed, at the 1990 Houston Summit, a more assertive stance with respect to the global environment. If Japan plays a major role in singlehandedlv giving her superior environmental and/or energy-saving technologies to countries who are seriously suffering from both security and economic threats caused bv deforestation, desertification, acid rain, etc.. Japan would be able to fulfill two prerequisites to becoming a "soft hegemon." that is. a hegemon capable of exercising co-optive power.

1NC: Net benefitStable Japanese soft power prevents nuclear rearmament and establishes a nuclear free Asia. Richard Samuels, Director of the Center for International Studies at M.I.T., Autumn, 2006, Japans Goldilocks Strategy, The Washington Quarterly 29.4A third choice, the one preferred by the middle-power internationalists, would be to achieve prestige by increasing prosperity. Japans exposure to some of the more difficult vicissitudes of world politics would be reduced but only if some of the more ambitious assaults on the Yoshida Doctrine were reversed. Japan would once again eschew the military shield in favor of the mercantile sword. It would bulk up the countrys considerable soft power in a concerted effort to knit East Asia together without generating new threats or becoming excessively vulnerable. The Asianists in this group would aggressively embrace exclusive regional economic institutions to reduce Japans reliance on the U.S They would not abrogate the military alliance but would resist U.S. exhortations for Japan to expand its roles and missions. Open, regional economic institutions as a means to reduce the likelihood of abandonment by the United States and would seek to maintain the United States protective embrace as cheaply and for as long as possible. The final, least likely choice would be to achieve autonomy through prosperity. This is the choice of pacifists, many of whom today are active in civil society through nongovernmental organizations that are not affiliated with traditional political parties. Like the mercantile realists, they would reduce Japans military posture, possibly even eliminate it. Unlike the mercantile realists, they would reject the alliance as dangerously entangling. They would eschew hard power for soft power, campaign to establish Northeast Asia as a nuclear-free zone, expand the defensive-defense concept to the region as a whole, negotiate a regional missile-control regime, and rely on the Asian Regional Forum of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) for security. 19 Their manifest problem is that the Japanese public is unmoved by their prescriptions. In March 2003, when millions took to the streets in Rome, London, and New York City to protest the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only several thousand rallied in Tokyos Hibiya Park. 20 Pacifist ideas about prosperity and autonomy seem relics of an earlier, more idealistic time when Japan could not imagine, much less openly plan for, military contingencies.

Proliferation in Asia quickly escalates to global nuclear war.Joseph Cirincione, Senior Associate and Director of Non-Proliferation Studies at the Carnegie Endowment, 2K, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/experts/index.cfm?fa=expert_view&expert_id=10&prog=zgp&proj=znpp The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia, where proliferation pressures are already building more quickly than anywhere else in the world. If a nuclear breakout takes place in Asia, then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. Moreover, the United States could find itself embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian continent in six decades--a costly rebuke to those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national missile defenses. Consider what is already happening: North Korea continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile programs; South Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's; India and Pakistan shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear arms race; China modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States; Japan's vice defense minister is forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons; and Russia--whose Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the largest Asian nuclear power--struggles to maintain territorial coherence. Five of these states have nuclear weapons; the others are capable of constructing them. Like neutrons firing from a split atom, one nation's actions can trigger reactions throughout the region, which in turn, stimulate additional actions. These nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear reaction chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development. If the frequency and intensity of this reaction cycle increase, critical decisions taken by any one of these governments could cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation, bringing regional and global economic and political instability and, perhaps, the first combat use of a nuclear weapon since 1945.

Critical for Japan to be self sustainableacting alone is the only way to ensure that Schoff, a senior associate in the Carnegie Asia Program. His research focuses on U.S.-Japanese relations and regional engagement, Japanese politics and security, and the private sectors role in Japanese policymaking, 14 (James L. 3/14, The Global Think Tank, "U.S. Reassurance and Japanese Defense Reforms Can Improve Security in East Asia", carnegieendowment.org/2014/03/13/u.s.-reassurance-and-japanese-defense-reforms-can-improve-security-in-east-asia/h85m?reloadFlag=1, 7/5/14, aven)It has been clear for some time that the regional security equation in Asia is tilting against Japan. A variety of defense and foreign policy decisions by Tokyo in recent years reflect the governments attempt to grapple with this slide into a security deficit.2 For Japan, the perception of vulnerability and growing threat (particularly vis--vis China but including North Korea) is multifaceted and includes security, economic, and diplomatic concerns. It is not an immediate crisis, but for a country that prioritizes stability, openness and access in the region, current trends do not bode well for the future.3 Japan is a highly industrialized global trading power with relatively few indigenous natural resources, but a highly skilled workforce and a strong technology knowledge base. Open and stable global trade is critical for Japan, as it relies on imports for about 92 percent of its primary energy supply and 64 percent of its calorie intake.4 National wealth is generated by adding value in the manufacturing and service sectors and thereby earning more through exports than is paid for imports, and investing the surplus domestically and overseas for productivity gains, investment return, manufacturing diversification, and risk mitigation. This strategywhich has worked so well for decadeshas been faltering recently. A weakening Yen and rising fossil fuel imports (to compensate for the shutdown of its nuclear energy industry) have pushed Japan into trade deficits.5 Japan is the worlds third largest oil importing country (after the United States), the third largest oil consumer, and the fourth largest electricity consumer. While Japans population has increased by about 50 percent since 1950, its consumption of energy has soared by nearly 300 percent, underscoring the vital role that energy plays in Japans modern economy.6 Japan has a strong position in terms of foreign currency reserves (over $1.2 trillion), but due to persistent fiscal deficits the countrys public debt is now 224 percent of GDP, and debt service consumes almost a quarter of the annual general account budget.7 The Japanese government faces significant fiscal constraints. Because the bulk of Japans trade is conducted by ship, freedom of navigation is critical for Japan to sustain itself. Although Japan is a small country in terms of land area (ranked sixty-first globally), its recognized territorial waters and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are the sixth largest in the world at nearly 4.5 million square kilometers, so it has a lot of area to both exploit and patrol.8 Maritime chokepoints outside of the EEZ, such as the Strait of Malacca and the Strait of Hormuz, are also strategically important to Japan. Any major disruptions there would quickly force time-consuming and expensive rerouting of vital shipments. Although North Korea remains a significant and unpredictable security concern for Japan, it is Chinas growing military capabilities and willingness to brandish them to press claims and expand its influence in the East China Sea and beyond that are prompting a Japanese reaction.9 The situation is most acute around the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands, which Beijing insists belong to China, but it extends to disputed EEZ demarcations in the East China Sea and claims to associated seabed resources. Japans sense of vulnerability is exacerbated by elements of economic dependence (including extensive direct investments in China and dependence on certain imports such as rare earth metals and food products) and even exposure to drifting air pollution from China.

Japan has already revised its ocean policy and is ready to do the planEnglish People Daily 13(April 26th, Japanese gov't passes 5-year basic plan on ocean policy, http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8223714.html 7/14)TOKYO, April 26 (Xinhua) -- The Japanese government has passed during a cabinet meeting on Friday a five-year basic plan on ocean policy, which aims at promoting undersea resources development and enhancing surveillance capacity around its waters. According to the plan, Japan will promote its investigation on reserves of undersea resources such as seabed methane hydrate and rare earth in the coming three years and develop technology for commercial production of methane gas from methane hydrate starting in 2018. The plan also seeks to enhance Japan's maritime surveillance capability in its surrounding waters by reorganizing and outfitting planes and ships for Japanese Coast Guard and Self- Defense Forces and realizing information sharing between the two forces.

Japan solves climate changeLomborg 13 (Dr. Bjorn, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and one of Time magazines 100 most influential people in the world, Is Japan showing the right way to tackle global warming?, 11/18/13, http://globe-net.com/japan-showing-right-way-tackle-global-warming/)//KJZUN Climate Summit should focus on green R&D, say Nobel Laureates. Japan has acknowledged that its previous greenhouse gas reduction target of 25% below 1990 levels was unfeasible. It has stated a more realistic estimate of its level of emissions is that it will increase some 3% by 2020. The government of Japan has opted for a different approach, namely investing in low carbon technologies. Japans decision could be a break-through for smarter climate policies, says Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. Japan has simply given up on the approach to climate policy that has failed for the past twenty years. Instead it has promised to spend $110 billion over five years for innovation in environmental and energy technologies. As it turns out, green R&D is the smartest approach to tackle climate change, and it could particularly help poor countries that rely on cheap energy to power their growth. Japan could incredible as it sounds actually end up showing the world to how tackle global warming effectively, Lomborg continues. $100 billion per year invested worldwide in green R&D would be hundreds of times more effective than the standard climate policies proposed. This is the conclusion from a panel of economists, including three Nobel laureates, documented in the book Smart Solutions to Climate Change (www.fixtheclimate.com). Lomborg points out that despite all the international summits and the hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to todays hugely inefficient green technologies, CO2 emissions have increased some 57% since 1990. We need to look at a different approach instead of backing the same wrong horse over and over again. The economics show that the smartest long-term solution would be to focus on innovating green energy. This would push down the costs of future generations of wind, solar and many other amazing possibilities. Everyone would switch to green energy, not just a token number of well-meaning rich Westerners. Instead of criticizing Japan for abandoning an approach that has repeatedly failed, we should applaud it for committing to a policy that could actually meet the challenge of global warming, Lomborg concludes.

NASAs budget is stable but the fiscal environment is tightCasey Dreier, 5/30/2014, The Planetary Society, The House Passes a $435 million increase to NASAs budget, http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2014/0529-the-house-just-passed-an-increase-to-nasas-budget.html

After a multi-day floor debate, the House of Representatives passed its 2015 funding bill for Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies by a vote of 321-87. NASA, which is included in this bill, is provided with $17.9 billion$435 million above the President's 2015 request and $250 million above its 2014 level. The accompanying committee report also directs the Planetary Science Division of NASA to receive a very strong $1.45 billion, nearly $185 million above the budget proposed by the President and very close to The Planetary Society's goal of $1.5 billion per year. Marcia Smith at Space Policy Online has more details about the bill, including highlighting the four amendments that tried to take money away from NASA: Four NASA-related amendments were defeated, three by voice vote and one by recorded vote. Kildee (D-MI), reduce NASA's Exploration account by $10 million and shift the funds to the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center: defeated by voice vote. Kildee (D-MI), reduce NASA's Exploration account by $15 million and shift the funds to Violent Crime Reduction Partnership Program: defeated by voice vote. Cicilline (D-RI), reduce NASA's Construction account by $8.5 million and shift the funds to Safe Neighborhoods Program (crime prevention): defeated 196-212. Kilmer (D-WA), reduce NASA's Aeronautics account by $2 million and shift the funds to Economic High Tech and Cyber Crime Prevention Program: defeated by voice vote. CJS committee chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) and ranking member Chaka Fattah (D-PA) opposed all of them because they would have cut NASA funding, not because they disagreed with the alternative priorities advocated by the amendments' sponsors. I think we can all agree with the motivations here, but we need to avoid raiding one of the few truly long-term, optimistic goals of the U.S. government. A proposal for a 1% across the board cut to all agencies, proposed by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), was also defeated, fortunately. The Senate has yet to release details about its proposed NASA budget for 2015, though it looks like we'll see the first draft next week. The full Senate must pass its own version of the budget and then reconcile it with the House, so there is still a ways to go, but so far things are looking quite good for Planetary Science and for NASA. We should take a moment to appreciate what happened today. NASA got an increase (a small one, but an increase nonetheless) within the context tight fiscal policies in government. The CJS committee, led by Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA), made the NASA pie a little bigger, which supported an increase to NASA science, particularly planetary science. This is not a perfect bill (Commercial Crew receives too little funding in my opinion) but overall the House funded NASA at a stronger level than anyone predicted. It's easy to get angry at Congress for a lot of things, but we should also make sure to acknowledge when they do something good. Today is a good day for space advocates, NASA, and space science, and I hope it's the start of a trend leading into the future.Ocean and space funding are zero-sum the plan causes a tradeoffKatherine Mangu-Ward, 9/4/2013, Slate Magazine, Is the Ocean the Real Final Frontier? http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/09/sea_vs_space_which_is_the_real_final_frontier.html

As usual, the fight probably comes down to money. The typical American believes that NASA is eating up a significant portion of the federal budget (one 2007 poll found that respondents pinned that figure at one-quarter of the federal budget), but the space agency is actually nibbling at a Jenny Craigsized portion of the pie. At about $17 billion, government-funded space exploration accounts for about 0.5 percent of the federal budget. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNASAs soggy counterpartgets much less, a bit more than $5 billion for a portfolio that, as the name suggests, is more diverse. But the way Shnlein tells the story, this zero sum mind-set is the result of a relatively recent historical quirk: For most of the history of human exploration, private funding was the order of the day. Even some of the most famous examples of state-backed explorationChristopher Columbus long petitioning of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, for instance, or Sir Edmund Hillarys quest to climb to the top of Everestwere actually funded primarily by private investors or nonprofits. But that changed with the Cold War, when the race to the moon was fueled by government money and gushers of defense spending wound up channeled into submarine development and other oceangoing tech. That does lead to an either/or mentality. That federal money is taxpayer money which has to be accounted for, and it is a finite pool that you have to draw from against competing needs, against health care, science, welfare, says Shnlein. In the last 10 to 15 years, we are seeing a renaissance of private finding of exploration ventures. On the space side we call it New Space, on the ocean side we have similar ventures. And the austerity of the current moment doesnt hurt. The private sector is stepping up as public falls down. Were really returning to the way it always was.Mars colonization is NASAs top priorityRT News, 6/23/2014, NASA plans to colonize Mars, http://rt.com/usa/167944-nasa-plans-colonize-mars/

NASA may not be planning to put a human on Mars until the 2030s, but the agencys top scientist said colonizing the planet is a key part of its agenda as well as its search for extraterrestrial life. In a wide-ranging interview with the Guardian, NASAs chief scientist Dr. Ellen Stofan emphasized that the quest to find alien life is focused primarily on our own solar system, where potential targets include Mars, Jupiters moon Europa, and Saturns moon Titan. In order to most effectively survey Mars for signs of life, though, Stofan said putting humans on the ground, and establishing a presence there, is a big priority. In response to a question about whether or not NASA plans to bring back astronauts that reach the Red Planet, Stofan said, We would definitely plan on bringing them back. We like to talk about pioneering Mars rather than just exploring Mars, because once we get to Mars we will set up some sort of permanent presence." NASA has expressed such interest before, most recently proposing to send a small greenhouse to the planet in order to experiment with cultivating plant life something that would be essential to establishing a permanent colony in the future.Mars colonization solves extinctionGeranios 10 (Nicholas, MSNBC, 11/15/2010, Scientists propose one-way trips to Mars, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40194872/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/scientists-propose-one-way-trips-mars/) SWInvoking the spirit of "Star Trek" in a scholarly article entitled "To Boldly Go," two scientists contend human travel to Mars could happen much more quickly and cheaply if the missions are made one-way. They argue that it would be little different from early settlers to North America, who left Europe with little expectation of return. "The main point is to get Mars exploration moving," said Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington State University, who wrote the article in the latest "Journal of Cosmology" with Paul Davies of Arizona State University. The colleagues state in one of 55 articles in the issue devoted to exploring Mars that humans must begin colonizing another planet as a hedge against a catastrophe on Earth. Mars is a six-month flight away, possesses surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant water, carbon dioxide and essential minerals. They propose the missions start by sending two two-person teams, in separate ships, to Mars. More colonists and regular supply ships would follow. The technology already exists, or is within easy reach, they wrote. An official for NASA said the space agency envisions manned missions to Mars in the next few decades, but that the planning decidedly involves round trips. President Obama informed NASA last April that he "`believed by the mid-2030s that we could send humans to orbit Mars and safely return them to Earth. And that a landing would soon follow,'" said agency spokesman Michael Braukus. No where did Obama suggest the astronauts be left behind. "We want our people back," Braukus said. Retired Apollo 14 astronaut Ed Mitchell, who walked on the Moon, was also critical of the one-way idea. "This is premature," Mitchell wrote in an e-mail. "We aren't ready for this yet." Davies and Schulze-Makuch say it's important to realize they're not proposing a "suicide mission." "The astronauts would go to Mars with the intention of staying for the rest of their lives, as trailblazers of a permanent human Mars colony," they wrote, while acknowledging the proposal is a tough sell for NASA, with its intense focus on safety. They think the private sector might be a better place to try their plan. "What we would need is an eccentric billionaire," Schulze-Makuch said. "There are people who have the money to put this into reality." Indeed, British tycoon Richard Branson, PayPal founder Elon Musk and Amazon.com Inc. CEO Jeff Bezos are among the rich who are involved in private space ventures. Isolated humans in space have long been a staple of science fiction movies, from "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" to "2001: A Space Odyssey" to a flurry of recent movies such as "Solaris" and "Moon." In many of the plots, the lonely astronauts fall victim to computers, madness or aliens. Psychological profiling and training of the astronauts, plus constant communication with Earth, will reduce debilitating mental strains, the two scientists said. "They would in fact feel more connected to home than the early Antarctic explorers," according to the article. But the mental health of humans who spent time in space has been extensively studied. Depression can set in, people become irritated with each other, and sleep can be disrupted, the studies have found. The knowledge that there is no quick return to Earth would likely make that worse. Davies is a physicist whose research focuses on cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology. He was an early proponent of the theory that life on Earth may have come from Mars in rocks ejected by asteroid and comet impacts. Schulze-Makuch works in the Earth Sciences department at WSU and is the author of two books about life on other planets. His focus is eco-hydrogeology, which includes the study of water on planets and moons of our solar system and how those could serve as a potential habitat for microbial life. The peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmology covers astronomy, astrobiology, Earth sciences and life. Schulze-Makuch and Davies contend that Mars has abundant resources to help the colonists become self-sufficient over time. The colony should be next to a large ice cave, to provide shelter from radiation, plus water and oxygen, they wrote. They believe the one-way trips could start in two decades. "You would send a little bit older folks, around 60 or something like that," Schulze-Makuch said, bringing to mind the aging heroes who save the day in "Space Cowboys." That's because the mission would undoubtedly reduce a person's lifespan, from a lack of medical care and exposure to radiation. That radiation would also damage human reproductive organs, so sending people of childbearing age is not a good idea, he said. There have been seniors in space, including John Glenn, who was 77 when he flew on the space shuttle in 1998. Still, Schulze-Makuch believes many people would be willing to make the sacrifice. The Mars base would offer humanity a "lifeboat" in the event Earth becomes uninhabitable, they said. "We are on a vulnerable planet," Schulze-Makuch said. "Asteroid impact can threaten us, or a supernova explosion. If we want to survive as a species, we have to expand into the solar system and likely beyond."