In general the earth is now a hostile an environment to live at because of the ever changing climate, global warming and overpopulation. Due to these circumstances, some people might think that the government should invest in finding opportunities to have humanity on another planet. I do not confer with the notion of finding another place to live. However, the essay shall discuss both views.
Firstly, there are so many problems on earth such as global warming, climatic change and most of them have been exacerbated by human practices. To explain, people have contributed to the deterioration of the environment through poor farming techniques such as overgrazing, deforestation and the ever expanding of cities. Moreover, technological advances which involves the emissions of chloloroflocarbons, and other gases such as carbon monoxide. All these will result in global warming and change of climate. However, if the government allocate funds in promoting the actions that contribute to the conservation of the environment these effects will be reduced and the earth planet will be comfortable to reside.
Furthermore, in some countries resources are inadequate. These include water and sanitation, health facilities and shelter. Finding another place to live is expensive than ensuring an equal allocation of resources. That is to say, problems caused for example by unemployment can be reduced through financing small businesses.
In contrast, finding another place for people to live might be a favourable idea. This is because, the earth has become too hot and uncomfortable to stay. Shifting to another place might lead to depopulation hence sufficiency.
In conclusion, although the earth has got soaring temperatures and limited resources: looking for a new planet to stay is more expensive than to provide funds that will assist in mitigating the current problems. Therefore, in my own opinion it is not good to use public funds to find people somewhere to stay rather the money should be used to solve the current problems.