As insurance it is badly priced. Earth after an asteroid, a nuclear exchange or a pandemic is still more habitable than Mars on its best day - more air, more water, a magnetic field. If the goal is a surviving human population, hardened shelters here cost a fraction of it and start working immediately.
Should humanity spend money colonising Mars?
A second home for the species against every problem the money could solve on the first one.
No votes yet — pick a side.
4 arguments
Pick a side
One click. You can change your mind.
Arguments
2A self-sufficient colony needs closed-loop life support that has never worked on Earth for more than about two years, in 38% gravity whose effect on a pregnancy is entirely unknown. The backup-planet argument requires the backup to work. We currently cannot keep eight people alive and fed in a sealed building in Arizona.
Share this debate
Challenge a friend
Send them your side. They get the other one.
Sign in to challenge someone.
Related debates
The verdict reflects the arguments submitted to Verdyct. It is a judgement about which side argued better — not a statement of objective truth.