[littlestymaar]

Also, people vastly underestimate how hostile space is: colonizing Mount Everest, the Antarctic or the continental plateau under sea would be far easier than colonizing Mars. And Mars is the most hospitable extraterrestrial place we know of.

[corimaith]

I don't think we would colonizing Mars, free floating colonies akin to O'Neil Cylinders orbiting Earth would probably be the more logical option. And with increasing robotic automation capabilities, it's not improbable to see these being built in the future.

[antonvs]

> it's not improbable

"Extremely improbable" would be a better assessment.

Even ignoring the project complexity, difficulty, and energy budget, which can't simply be handwaved away by "robotic automation", one reason is simply that such colonies don't solve any problem that we're likely to have, that can't be solved much more cheaply, safely, and effectively.

But even the idea that we'll eventually have the technology to build such structures is debatable. Will this be before or after we solve climate change, for example? Because that issue is likely to severely impact our technological capabilities over the timescales involved. And as of today, the most technologically advanced nation is doubling down on atmospheric carbon production.

[littlestymaar]

Having the technology to build it isn't the hard part. The question is why you'd do that in the first place and who would fund such a colony.

First of all it's going to be massively more expensive than any housing we've ever built on earth so only a very small elite could afford living there.

But then again, space is a very hostile environment: it's super dangerous (any incident will almost certainly snowball into a dramatic accident), very unhealthy (billionaires are currently funding longevity research, so I don't think they'd like to go in a place where they would age up significantly faster than on earth…), and life is just worse up there on all respect…