[komali2]

The article seems to argue that point 2 is strictly false, or a red herring: humans can do the science on earth, while robots collect data in space.

Point 4 seems more a political/economic failure than a valid reason to pour resources into a Mars project.

[throw_pm23]

Yes, and Point 3 is a fancy version of the broken window fallacy, while Point 1 is a BS "appeal to nature" that can be used to justify anything, including some of the worst things.