It would really suck if, in the next 100 years, we see some extinction-level comet or asteroid crash into the Earth when we might have done the "not all our eggs in one basket".
Some kinds of caution aren't very careful at all.
Some kinds of caution aren't very careful at all.
Our response to climate change (which, even if it's not at the level of total planetary extinction, is still quite serious) suggests we would instead obfuscate, dispute and quarrel.
Realistically, what fraction of the world's people could we possibly move to Mars, and how would we even pick those people? How would we even come to agree on a fair way to choose?
We probably could get enough breeding pairs there to preserve our species. There is evidence of genetic bottlenecks in the past. But 99% of humans would be left to die. Not to mention all other life forms. (Maybe we'll bring cats, too?)
I'm not opposed to visiting Mars, but to do so under the claim that we could save humanity from disaster is utter folly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63221577
Added bonus: Investing resources into this saves Earth and everyone on it.
Can we bootstrap up an energy economy there? Dunno, that's the first step. With a large enough energy budget, food's doable. Water is likely in situ.
> It seems like surviving the loss of Earth is a long way off regardless.
Even longer if you wait to try.
If you asked me to guess, it would be somewhere between impossible and 1000 years of terraforming.