> No. I'm saying that if the threat of human extinction is the GP's concern, a mission to Mars is very low on the list of solutions that will effectively mitiga

> No. I'm saying that if the threat of human extinction is the GP's concern, a mission to Mars is very low on the list of solutions that will effectively mitigate that threat. Why is that low on the list? What threat are you referring to? Extinction level events can't be generalized because there are a huge amount of them many of which could leave the planet uninhabitable so I'm not sure why you're not only generalizing them but making it sound as if it's an unlikely solution against an unknown list of problems. > Colonizing Mars does not scale as a defense against an extinction event Care to explain why? Considering there are a large list of known (and probably a larger list of unknown) possible extinction events, many of which could wipe out the entire human race almost instantly, off world makes the most sense as part of a system designed to ensure the human race can stay around forever (or at least past an extinction level event). > any problems we might face on Earth will certainly be present on Mars False depending on what this extinction level event is. There are a great many things that could make Earth less habitable than Mars (though most of them most likely temporary).