> The key fallacy here is taking our present state of living as somehow "natural" or non-technological. The key fallacy in your argument is taking each solutio

> The key fallacy here is taking our present state of living as somehow "natural" or non-technological. The key fallacy in your argument is taking each solution in isolation. Winnipeg, etc. have summers. They're not always winter. And they have breathable air. And cheap resupply from Mexico via tractor-trailer. Saudia Arabia, etc. has breathable air. And it's just laughable to suggest that because parts of Earth didn't have industry before people, it should be simple to do the same on Mars. Earth has air, water, resources, readily available local food, and cheap re-supply. Mars has none of that. Mars is Winnipeg in the winter (i.e. all the time), with the water of Saudi Arabia (i.e. none), with the resources of a polynesian volcanic island (i.e. rock), and the breathable air worse than the top of Everest, the food availability of Saudia Arabia, and is at the end of a 1-2 year resupply line. All at the same time. I like dreaming as much as the next person. But colonizing Mars won't be done on dreams. It will require hard-nosed engineering.