[alancalverd]

The point of colonizing Mars is to liberate humanity from dependency to a specific space object, namely earth.

I disagree. Humanity has no cosmic importance, and where it lives is of even less significance. But from a human point of view the reason to visit Mars is because it would be interesting to do so.

[hamdani yusuf]

The point of colonizing Mars is to liberate humanity from dependency to a specific space object, namely earth.

I disagree. Humanity has no cosmic importance, and where it lives is of even less significance. But from a human point of view the reason to visit Mars is because it would be interesting to do so.

You may disagree. But someone elses clearly agree with me. Elon Musk and his supporters are some examples.

One side wants to preserve consciousness, while the other doesn't. We can predict which one would be more likely to survive in the long run.

History might be written by the winners. But it's read and revised by the survivors.

[alancalverd]

If we could find another wet planet, it would be worthwhile exporting and preserving an intelligent species like octopus, but the sooner homo sapiens is eliminated from the universe the better.

[Professor Mega-Mind]

Alrighty then !
Let's up our game step-by-step , by starting with near-Earth asteroids , then distant ones , then Phobos/Deimos, then the surface of Mars .😎

[hamdani yusuf]

the sooner homo sapiens is eliminated from the universe the better.

From whose perspective?

[alancalverd]

From the perspective of every other warmblooded creature, fish or plant on this planet, and, logically, any other habitable planet.  The only creatures that benefit from our existence are mosquitoes and gut bacteria, and we have no god-given right or apparent reason to export them to the rest of the universe.

Human colonisation of other human societies has been a shameful process, and expansion into desert regions merely litters the landscape with our waste. There is no reason to expect that successful colonisation of any alien planet will be less disgusting, unless the colonists are exterminated by superior forces or cosmic indifference.

[Professor Mega-Mind]

That poses a philosophical question...
Would you rather have thousands of beautiful eggs , or the occasional Robin that hatches out of a few of them ? .🤔

[Origin]

Exploring Mars makes sense for scientific reasons, for sure.  I think it makes the most sense to spend the time and effort to develop advanced robots to do the job, sending people there is going to be so much more expensive and dangerous that it just makes little sense at this point.
As far as having a self sustaining colony on mars that really makes no sense.  The cost of a colony and the distance makes it impractical. 
If for some reason it is felt that we need to colonize another celestial body the moon is the obvious choice.  The moon is obviously closer and since it is smaller than Mars the escape velocity is much lower so it is much easier to launch a ship from there.
Maybe after we have about 10 to 20 year experience with a colony on the moon, we would have a better idea if a colony on Mars would even be feasible.
I think it would be a terrible life to live on Mars.  Your entire life would be spent living in doors - yuck.

[Professor Mega-Mind]

To : Origin Ov ,
You make good points mahn , but consider... there are a variety of possible human activities which Mars might be optimal for .
Martian ecotourism, low-gravity sports venues, low-g entertainment complexes, low-g medical treatment facilities, low-g hospice housing , low-g retirement communities , artist and alternative-lifestyle communities , mining operations with company housing , and scientific bases/complexes , to name a few .
The decider with this is the creation of both fast , and affordable , means of interplanetary transportation . If the mousetrap is good enough , the mice assuredly will come running ! .

**For a light-hearted examination of Martian settlement , read my post :
quora.com/Guys-give-it-to-me-straight-we-ain-t-going-to-Mars-Are-we/answer/Derek-Hendricks-7?ch

[hamdani yusuf]

From the perspective of every other warmblooded creature, fish or plant on this planet, and, logically, any other habitable planet.  The only creatures that benefit from our existence are mosquitoes and gut bacteria, and we have no god-given right or apparent reason to export them to the rest of the universe.

Human colonisation of other human societies has been a shameful process, and expansion into desert regions merely litters the landscape with our waste. There is no reason to expect that successful colonisation of any alien planet will be less disgusting, unless the colonists are exterminated by superior forces or cosmic indifference.

Do you think that killing human is a good idea? Have you done that?
What's the success rate?
If you haven't, what stopped you?

[hamdani yusuf]

As far as having a self sustaining colony on mars that really makes no sense.  The cost of a colony and the distance makes it impractical.
If for some reason it is felt that we need to colonize another celestial body the moon is the obvious choice.  The moon is obviously closer and since it is smaller than Mars the escape velocity is much lower so it is much easier to launch a ship from there.

The main reason Mars was chosen is that it contains the resources to sustain life and refuel the rockets, namely H2O and CO2, which can be converted into CH4 and O2 through some simple processes.

[benvong]

I think this question is very relevant. At the moment, humanity is not ready to colonize Mars, but I have no doubt that the time will come and people will live on Mars.

[alancalverd]

Do you think that killing human is a good idea? Have you done that?
What's the success rate?
If you haven't, what stopped you?

I haven't, because it hasn't been necessary or part of my job. However I have ex-military friends who have done it very sucessfully: the penalty for failure in their profession is usually instant death.

[hamdani yusuf]

Do you think that killing human is a good idea? Have you done that?
What's the success rate?
If you haven't, what stopped you?

I haven't, because it hasn't been necessary or part of my job. However I have ex-military friends who have done it very sucessfully: the penalty for failure in their profession is usually instant death.

But you do think that killing them is a good idea. Is it all of them, or some of them? What's the distinguishing characteristics, of whom should be killed, and whom should not?

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

I think this question is very relevant. At the moment, humanity is not ready to colonize Mars, but I have no doubt that the time will come and people will live on Mars.

Probably you are right and one day we will colonize the red planet. But we should understand that the life of human beings will be changed completely as as a result of the harsh environment of the red planet and will not be the same as we have on Earth.

[alancalverd]

But you do think that killing them is a good idea. Is it all of them, or some of them? What's the distinguishing characteristics, of whom should be killed, and whom should not?

In my case, yes, otherwise I wouldn't waste time doing it, and the distinguishing characteristic is that said person(s) pose a serious threat to me or those I care about.

In the soldier's case, a politician has chosen the enemy, a general has decided how he (they) should be killed, you have contracted to obey orders, and the chances are that the enemy does indeed pose a threat to whatever it is that you are defending.

[hamdani yusuf]

But you do think that killing them is a good idea. Is it all of them, or some of them? What's the distinguishing characteristics, of whom should be killed, and whom should not?

In my case, yes, otherwise I wouldn't waste time doing it, and the distinguishing characteristic is that said person(s) pose a serious threat to me or those I care about.

In the soldier's case, a politician has chosen the enemy, a general has decided how he (they) should be killed, you have contracted to obey orders, and the chances are that the enemy does indeed pose a threat to whatever it is that you are defending.

So, only some of them.
Does that include Iraq's WMD?

[evan_au]

a self sustaining colony on mars that really makes no sense.  The cost of a colony and the distance makes it impractical.

You could say the same for colonies in Iceland, North America or Australia.
- Some of them failed, but some eventually succeeded to the point where they became self-sustaining
- There were different motivations - exploration, national pride, conquest, land, resources, escaping from a difficult situation or getting rid of a difficult problem.
- For now, Mars is in the exploration and national pride stage
- It is hard to imagine what resources would justify the trip - water is valuable for space exploration, but it should be easier to get it from the Moon
- Elon Musk is concerned about one difficult situation: humanity currently has all its eggs in one basket - and the basket is turning into a basket-case. In this scenario, the great distance is a benefit.

[bearnard1212 (OP)]

a self sustaining colony on mars that really makes no sense.  The cost of a colony and the distance makes it impractical.

You could say the same for colonies in Iceland, North America or Australia.
- Some of them failed, but some eventually succeeded to the point where they became self-sustaining
- There were different motivations - exploration, national pride, conquest, land, resources, escaping from a difficult situation or getting rid of a difficult problem.
- For now, Mars is in the exploration and national pride stage
- It is hard to imagine what resources would justify the trip - water is valuable for space exploration, but it should be easier to get it from the Moon
- Elon Musk is concerned about one difficult situation: humanity currently has all its eggs in one basket - and the basket is turning into a basket-case. In this scenario, the great distance is a benefit.

Talking about the colonization of other planets, This is a video about the possibility of the colonization of Venus put forward by NASA. Personally, I think the idea of colonizing Venus is a completely useless idea. Even more useless than colonizing Mars. Venus's environment is even more harsh than the environment on Mars which will we should understand that the life of human beings will be changed completely as a result of the harsh environment of Venus and will not be the same as we have on Earth.   

[Professor Mega-Mind]

Mr. Beardnard ,
You are so right that it's ridickulous ! .
There's no way that humanity will ever really colonize Venus , by floating above that furnace , while soaking in acid-rain . Such would be absurdly expensive , economically unproductive , and an obscene flouting of the sanctity of human life .
The only real answer there is to fully geoengineer the planet itself ; in otherwords... shade planet Venus .
If self-guiding solar-shades were kept librating in Lagrange Point L-1 , then over a period of several hundred years , the planet's atmosphere/surface would cool down to reasonable levels . This would cause the CO2 to condense , and rain out onto the venusian surface . That badly cracked , granulated , and extremely desiccated crust would soak the liquid carbon-dioxide up like a baked sponge . The CO2 would then combine with the abundant alkali-metals therein , and form carbonate compounds , thus naturally sequestering the 1-km. high (equivalent) column of liquid CO2 .
When only two atmospheres worth of CO2 were left , carbon-dioxide snow would replace the rain . The shading would be reduced at this point , the precipitation would stop , and man and his machines would descend . These would begin long-term atmospheric processing , and mechanical deep-sequestration .
Eventually , a mostly nitrogen , partly O2 atmosphere would be produced , and artificially maintained . The sulfuric-acid clouds would yield water for human use , the planet would become a desert resembling 'Arrakis', and the solarshades would be removed . The thick N2 shell would protect the population from all space-based radiation , thus allowing for dispersed paraterraformed environments to cover Venus' lands .
**To examine this subject in greater detail read my Post #21at :
quora.com/Which-one-would-be-easier-to-terraform-Venus-or-Mars/answer/Derek-Hendricks-7?ch