It's more about per unit cost of existence vs per unit revenue from existence. We're at the point where it's definitely possible to take rockets to other planet

It's more about per unit cost of existence vs per unit revenue from existence. We're at the point where it's definitely possible to take rockets to other planets (and probably possible to get back eventually) and it's probably possible to live there with continued help from earth, it's just really expensive and it will never be cheaper than just living on earth, as long as earth's climate stays within a reasonable band around where it is now and Earth doesn't become so uniformly corrupt that there is a massive savings available just by changing the venue to a less stupidly run venue. So, that being said it's pretty obvious the people that think we will be living on other planets are pretty delusional unless our birthrate explodes (unlikely) or our death rate drops from living way longer (unlikely but more likely than birth rate exploding) and so we actually need more living space. Revenue potential could drive colonization but you have to ask yourself if there is more revenue potential on mars or in something like an o'neill cylinder(s) mining things with miniscule gravity wells to overcome like asteroids and it seems pretty obvious that the latter will always win over the former. The same reasoning applies to Phoenix. Biodoming would make cost of existence per unit of revenue from existence hugely negative but it turns out providing good air conditioning with backup power to upper middle class and higher to cool their homes and crappier air conditioning with no backup power to middle class and lower to take the edge off of the horrible 2-4 months of summer is still a net positive venture, despite sucking a lot for a part of the year, so we do that instead.