Argumentation
(A partir d'un sujet d'expression de mines-ponts)
A one-way trip to Mars
Forty years after the first Moon landing, the dream of going up to the stars has faded. Clearly, some creative thinking is badly needed if humans are to have a future beyond Earth. What does get people excited is the prospect of a mission to Mars. There is a way to put humans on Mars with foreseeable technology, and at a fraction of the projected cost. Five years ago I made the radical proposal that a handful of astronauts be sent on a one-way journey to Mars. I am not talking about a suicide mission. With its protective atmosphere, accessible water and carbon dioxide, and significant amounts of methane, Mars is one of the few places in the solar system that could support a human colony. By eliminating the need to transport heavy fuel and equipment for the return journey, costs could be slashed by 80% or more. The base would be re-supplied from Earth every two years. The ideal astronauts would be scientists and engineers who could serve as trailblazers for the colonisation of a new planet. After a century or two, the colony could become self-sustaining.
I have found no shortage of eager scientists who say they would accept a one-way ticket. So my proposal makes financial and scientific sense, but it leaves us with the key question: why? A permanent base on Mars would have a number of advantages beyond being a bonanza for planetary science and geology. If, as some evidence suggests, exotic micro-organisms have arisen independently of terrestrial life, studying them could revolutionise biology, medicine and biotechnology.
Mars would also provide an excellent forward base for exploring and mining the asteroid belt, and developing whole new industries. A self-sustaining Mars colony would serve as a "lifeboat" in the event of a global catastrophe on Earth.Perhaps the best motivation for going to Mars is political. No single nation has either the will or the resources to do it alone, but a consortium could achieve it within 20 years. A worldwide project to create a second home for humankind would be the greatest adventure our species has embarked upon since walking out of Africa.
The Guardian Weekly
1. What does the project presented in this article consist of? Answer the question in your own words (70-120 words).
Rappel : on ne prend que les arguments du texte, que l'on reformule.
(87 words)
2. In your opinion, what are the objections to such a project? Do you agree with these objections? (110-200 words).
Possibilité A
Introduction : accroche qui justifie la question -sujet posé-.
Such a project has rekindled the dream of going up to the stars. Yet the objections against so innovative a mission are manifold. Are they forceful?
Paragraphe 1 : pose l'idée de départ
(ARGUMENT)The medical impacts of a prolonged stay in space could be a key objection because (EXPLICATION+EXEMPLE) nobody really knows how bodies will react to the living conditions on Mars. Scientists are admittedly aware of such limits as astronaut Scott Kelly's
experiment suggests: even though in 2016, he spent 340 days aboard the International
Space Station to examine how his own body would react to such living
conditions, (BILAN) further research is still required.
Paragraphe 2 : confirme/nuance/ ou contredit le premier argument
However low-priced the project sounds at first, we may wonder if countries may be eager to spend large amounts of money on it, especially in times of economic recession. The money poured into the mission could indeed be spent elsewhere: why not use it to help save our planet instead of attempting to establish a colony on another planet should a global disaster happen here?
A partir de la tension soulevée, on répond à la question de l'introduction
Cogent as these objections might be, scientific research must be as
innovative as possible for the benefit of mankind. Mere material and
economic considerations should probably not be obstacles to its
development.
(194 words)
Possibilité C
The Mars One project implies that the humans sent to the Red Planet would stay there. Many have objected to it on several grounds.
In view of the hostile environment on Mars, MIT expressed doubts as to the feasibility of supporting a colony using current technology, quoting the obvious hurdles of excessive oxygen produced when growing crops, of spare parts sent from Earth, of the weak gravitational atmosphere, and the radiation and temperature levels. To overcome these obstacles, terraforming studies are under way but colonising Mars is still considered as a highly complex mission.
Regardless of logistics or methodology, would the aim be ethical? While President Kennedy's setting a new frontier and a new challenge was in keeping with a politically-oriented dream of space conquest, Mars One implies that Earth will no longer be able to sustain life. Setting up a permanent colony to expand our reach into space would amount to escapism, or to dodging the environmental and man-made challenges that may blight our Earth-bound future. It is inherently human to express desire for adventure, but doing so, should man risk exacerbating existing detrimental processes such as economic inequality and environmental degradation?
(193 words)