[jaredhansen]

> 2. We can't even take care of Earth. I'm no expert but I have to believe it would be far cheaper and easier to solve Earth's problems.

This is a popular view but I think it is wrong. Yes, we have problems on Earth. But if you compare Earth today, in terms of "carrying capacity for human beings", or "utils generated per day" or some other metric you like, vs pre-human Earth, I don't think it's a close contest.

The few early humans were hungry, naked and vulnerable to all manner of dangers. Now there are billions of us, and most live in relative safety, comfort and material luxury. If we can do for Mars what we did for Earth, that will be the best thing that has ever happened to Mars.

[thinkingtoilet]

We also are directly causing a mass extinction event as well as knowingly destroying our only habitat. I don't know if we can make Mars worse than it is but I would bet good money we'd find a way.

[kevindamm]

..and allows our species to (eventually) hedge our bets over multiple accommodating environments.

As for why not moon, I'm not a terraforming expert but my understanding is that the more massive planet will be capable of retaining an atmosphere more easily than our small satellite would.

[Thrymr]

> if you compare Earth today, in terms of "carrying capacity for human beings", or "utils generated per day" or some other metric you like, vs pre-human Earth, I don't think it's a close contest.

Maybe let's turn down the optimization on a single metric before we're all turned into paper clips.