One terrible thing wrought by billionaire Mars fantasies is a backlash that I think has become too sweeping. It's wrongheaded for a million reasons, but it's nevertheless true that hedging against terrestrial existential risks is something we should have an interest in.
Therefore it is a non-issue as given that LLMs have only gotten exponentially more impressive, in [current_year+n] you will be able to prompt Claude to materialize a fast terraforming machine and FTL it over to mars.
So if the version of the idea that you're engaging with is one that doomed to fail, doesn't have the resources or technology or population to succeed... maybe assume that's not the version I'm talking about?
There are contexts where I love to get into these kinds of details (there was an amazing conversation on HN from a few months ago [1] about what would be involved in sending a bunch of voyager-style space probes to alpha centauri), but you have to want to try.
Why on earth would you presume someone talking about such hedges, is discussing 6 people? The very idea is absurd, and you're certainly not discussing this in a way that seems reasonable, or fair.
In terms of resources, Mars has plenty. The fact that you view Mars through a time-locked, current view is weird. Mars is a path. It's not just about now, but 2 centuries from now as well. You take a step on a road, and you're not there immediately.
Arguing that "Well, what's the big deal, you want to take a step down the sidewalk?! Where will you be then, no where!!" is a very, very strange way to discuss this.