Some people claim that spending funds on looking for life on other planets is ideal, while others believe these expenditures should be allocated for existing problems on Earth. In the following essay, I will evaluate the persuasiveness of each school of thought before proposing my personal opinion.
On the one hand, there are numerous rationales why people want the governments to search for life on other planets. Firstly, there has been a growing concern that the Earth will be unlivable in the future due to the over-exploitation of natural resources and pollutions, which lead to global climate change and different extreme weather events such as tsunami, earthquake, or unpredictable tropical storms. As a result, looking for alternative places to situate is observing a growing demand among people and even the governments of several nations. This is reasonable since it would help maintain the existence of human race as well as provide our descendants with higher living standards and conveniences.
On the other hand, some people are of the belief that these expenditures should be spent on unsolved concerns on Earth. The reason is that there are still apparent problems around the world such as overpopulation, poverty, or world hunger that need to be tackled. For instance, individuals believe that rather than exploring new planets for settlement, the government should allocate these funds to democratize places with extreme weathers such as deserts or poles. Moreover, it is also unreasonable to spend a bank of money finding idealistic destinations while there are still people who are struggling to make their ends meet.
In conclusion, even though there are mixed opinions in determining whether expenditures should be used on outer space purposes or unresolved difficulties. I personally believe that in order to satisfy both demands the government should strike a balance in allocating funds, and no category should predominantly receive financial support.