> Just try to think about this: how bad do the conditions on Earth have to get before it makes sense to try to move to a planet that is essentially uninhabitabl

> Just try to think about this: how bad do the conditions on Earth have to get before it makes sense to try to move to a planet that is essentially uninhabitable? Where even in the best scenarios we would live really harsh lives after a long and dangerous voyage. I agree, any scenario where people are able to survive long term on Mars the same techniques should work on Earth given enough resources dedicated to implementing them. The main reason surviving Mars might be easier than a ravaged Earth is just the number of people, it'll be much harder on Earth because even if one particular country manages to setup something they'll be in competition with every other country for the resources to do it and the scale required will be bigger because of the number of people it would have to support. There is one other reason to colonize Mars that isn't 'running away from a burning planet' and that's just as a kind of civilization backup against crazy civilization ending events (super-bug, meteor strike, complete climate collapse, etc.), note none of these need to completely wipe out human life to want an 'independent backup' civilization. Modern life can seem pretty fragile when you think about the long supply chains from raw material to finished product and the intricate machines/techniques that go into even relatively simple products. I think it's the kind of thinking that partially comes from exposure to a lot of scifi and also the fact that very few things threaten billionaires beyond death (which I'm a little surprised more aren't pouring money into senescence research) and the break down of modern life. They're pretty secure against most everything else.