>The fact we could inhabit the moon and eventually mars at all means we could adapt to a inhospitable earth pretty easily. Hmm, not so fast. I don't think we'v

>The fact we could inhabit the moon and eventually mars at all means we could adapt to a inhospitable earth pretty easily. Hmm, not so fast. I don't think we've proved that at all. We can "inhabit" those in the same way that I can "inhabit" the bottom of a pool. In fact, as a numbers game: we've been on the moon during all the Apollo missions for ~3.5 days. Modern humanoids are about 200,000 years old. Or in other words, we've inhabited the moon for 5e-8 % of humanities' existence. The record for holding one's breath is ~25 minutes by a guy called Budimir Šobat. Say their lifespan is 85 years. That's about 5e-7 % of their life. Or in other words, they've "inhabited" the bottom of the pool for 10x longer than humanity as a species has "inhabited" the moon. I wouldn't feel comfortable saying his record proves we can inhabit the bottom of a pool, and I think the same has to be applied to the moon. We have to consider self-sufficiency as a condition of whether or not we're really considered as native inhabitants of a place, or just a temporary extension of the mother planet. In that regard, we honestly can't even really prove equilibrium with our home planet's resources, let alone an inhospitable one like mars or the moon. I'm sure we could sustain a colony of 50 people on mars for the rest of their natural lives. Pack them enough air and snacks, and I'm sure it's doable today. However, I'm much more skeptical that we could do that without constant resupply for an indefinite period. Yeah, we might be able to conceivably generate electricity, purify water, oxygen, grow food, etc on-site, but what happens when those solar panels start to fail at 50 years, or the mechanical interlocks on the airlocks start to become excessively leaky, or the HVAC systems fail? None of that equipment can be regenerated on mars.