All of this speculation neglects that 1.Chemical rockets are still absurdly expensive, slow and unreliable. 2a.Terraforming Mars requires megatons of new materi

All of this speculation neglects that 1.Chemical rockets are still absurdly expensive, slow and unreliable. 2a.Terraforming Mars requires megatons of new materials/tools/robots, international/business cooperation(who owns mars?) within the context of "wild west" on Mars. 2b.Creating populated domed stations on Mars is a gimmick and lacks any cost/benefit analysis(a job better dealt with robots). Its equivalent to Antarctic stations without air. 3.People wouldn't move to Mars just because of novelty(which would wear off in a few year), there wouldn't be any tangible advantages(lower gravity=weaker bones,muscles,weak magnetic field=more radiation, less stable/diluted atmosphere) and the cost of moving or traveling to/from mars is high due #1. In summary money is better spent on developing non-chemical spaceflight first.