> Something that forces us to focus on what's important.
Primarily, it would be something that forces us to send rocket after rocket of supplies there, wasting countless resources in the process for very little, if any, practical benefit.
Because, no, there is nothing to be gained on Mars that can't be gained much more effectively via robotic probes, and no, a Mars colony will not be self-sufficient.
Investing resources for no good reason, is to me the exact opposite of "focusing on the important".
Saying putting 1% of earth's resources to have a chance, of let's say super pessimistically, 15%, of actually surviving as a species through and beyond an otherwise species-ending catastrophe, to be "waste" is so stupid. This kind of thinking would have us never have gone to the moon or even have utilized the loom.
Robotic probes are irrelevant to colonization. It's like saying why don't Russians stop at just fly drones to Ukraine lol
> 1% of earth's resources to have a chance, of let's say super pessimistically, 15%, of actually surviving as a species
That would be a good investment, yes.
Unfortunately, a Mars colony doesn't realize that investment. There wont be a self-sustainable colony on a planet, where even the planets gravity well (which we cannot change, unless someone has SG1-Asgard-level technology lying around) prohibits long term survivability of a species that evolved in a gravity well almost three times as strong.
Primarily, it would be something that forces us to send rocket after rocket of supplies there, wasting countless resources in the process for very little, if any, practical benefit.
Because, no, there is nothing to be gained on Mars that can't be gained much more effectively via robotic probes, and no, a Mars colony will not be self-sufficient.
Investing resources for no good reason, is to me the exact opposite of "focusing on the important".