[flopunctro]

The less-obvious difference between Mars and "anywhere on Earth" is that no amount of environmental (even tectonic) damage done on Earth is going to affect Mars. I'm not arguing that Mars is orders of magnitude harder than Nevada, but it covers the risk of "we fucked Earth".

[jfengel]

But the risk of "we fucked Earth" to the point where it's harder to colonize than Mars is effectively nonexistent. You could set off every nuclear device at once and it would still be easier to live here than on Mars. Even a dinosaur-killing asteroid would still leave the planet easier to live on than Mars. (Many species did survive last time, even without technology.)

[opencl]

No matter how badly we fuck up Earth with pollution/climate change/nuclear war/etc. it is still going to be a far more habitable place than Mars.

[aseipp]

Yes, but you see, only one of those possibilities allows me to live out a fantasy of being a cool space colonist like Matt Damon. The other one requires me to be a usual suspect who has to deal with the material outcomes of living in society. So, all things considered -- it's definitely way cooler to believe that Mars is the answer. And as someone who knows absolutely nothing about pollution, the environment, or Mars, but read every Isaac Asimov novel -- I think this isn't being given due consideration.

You know what they say! If you can't make absolutely minimal changes to the political outcomes of your planet, you're absolutely ready to dart off into space onto planets with no breathable atmosphere or water that could have unknown effects on the human body and mind.