The importance of Mars cannot be overstated for one simple reason: it is the only place in the solar system where we have the chance of a completely self-sufficient existence with no support from Earth.<p>Mars has natural resources we can mine and plenty of water. For what it lacks the asteroid belt “nearby” could provide in endless quantity.
Why not colonize currently uninhabitable areas of earth first? I don't get the emphasis on colonizing space when there are much more tractable places to colonize.
This is a really interesting read. If we’re willing to live afloat, we can begin with Ocean Cities of Earth and expand to Cloud Cities of Venus as necessary.<p>Mars might still be easier to terraform than Venus, if we develop the technology, so maybe that’s part of why it became the focus. But if we could terraform Mars, perhaps we could just reterraform Earth.
>There is this idea that Mars won out over Venus for one simple reason: a surface.<p>The bias for a planet with a surface makes sense because of the majority of the technologies we would use with regards to creating a habitat are far easier on a surface than hypothetical floating cities that we haven't even developed here yet.
Colonizing another planet deprives humans of resources which could be spent improving Earth, and the most likely outcome is catastrophic failure of the colony. All this to live in a sh*thole for which humans have no adaptation. Raising children in such an environment is borderline abuse.
A big reason is simple: proximity.<p>I know that space travel isn't always linear for efficiency reasons, but with optimistic travel to our closest destination taking 3 months, anything further begins to decay the dream that they could see themselves going there.