The case for Mars seems weak
One of Elon Musk's rallying cries is the urgency of going to Mars, but I really can't see what purpose this serves. This is a conversation piece just going over why I can't see the merit in Mars.
My assessment goes as follows:
Minimal Technological Benefit
Minimal Economic Benefit
Territorial Expansion Unnecessary
Totemic / Symbolic Benefit Undermined By Divisiveness
Intelligent Life Backup System Seems Ineffective
Regulatory Freedom Also Means No Protections
Minimal Technological Benefit
Early space exploration yielded great technological benefits, and I can absolutely see the merit in continued investments in space exploration. However what technologies do we expect to gain specifically from Mars development?
The main technology exclusive to cultivating a planet would be practical exercises in terraforming. But the prevailing scientific theory is that Mars is unable to retain an atmosphere due to weak gravity (closer to the moon than to Earth's) which makes terraforming non-viable. You can't generate a habitable planet if the atmosphere is continually peeling away. And if you wanted to practice changing environments then there are places on Earth that would make for cheaper experiments.
You could of course build enclosed pressurized spaces for human habitation on Mars, rather than cultivating the planet. But then you could just do that in space anyway, which would likely be cheaper and easier and more generalist. If you master habitable space stations you can build homes (almost) anywhere in the universe, if you master Mars habitation then that's one planet out of trillions and the lessons won't be universally applicable.
Minimal Economic Benefit
Mars has resources we could mine, but then so does everywhere in the universe. And it's my impression that asteroid mining would be much more practical than Mars mining - easier to pick your targets for rare/valuable resources, less drilling depth needed, and less of a gravity well to export resources out.
And even then space mining seems a great industry for automation - sending out a mining drone is going to be safer and cheaper than sending human personnel. So pushing for human habitation on Mars would just further undermine any economic arguments.
And how long would it take for Martian resource extraction to yield any benefits? Mars colonies would probably need ~200 years and trillions of dollars for its revenue to outpace operating costs. Maybe it could turn a profit within a millennium, but investing in almost anything else seems like a faster return.
Territorial Expansion Unnecessary
Historically nations have launched expeditions into new lands either to find treasures to bring back or to find areas to colonize. The treasure objective has already been addressed above, but the colonization angle also seems weak.
Firstly there are underdeveloped regions on Earth that would be much cheaper and easier to make habitable than it is to colonize Mars. Think of all the inhospitable deserts that hold nothing but dust and misery. Or the depths of our oceans.
If we wanted to experiment with terraforming places into verdant fields, or experiment with building safe structures in hostile environments then we could do that cheaper on Earth to start with. Then only think about applying those lessons in space much later on.
Secondly, there's just no impetus for humanity to seize more territory. We face long term demographic challenges and even population collapse - Earth alone has ample room for humanity’s projected peak population.
Totemic / Symbolic Benefit Undermined By Divisiveness
The symbolic benefit of Mars is probably the strongest argument, though it is by definition hollow. I do think successful Mars missions could inspire and encourage many people IF the person championing it wasn't so divisive.
So if you're a Musk fanboy it's fine. But if you're not then you have little reason to get invested in his fantasies. Sept 2024 polling put Musk US favourability ratings at 36% positive vs 45% negative. This likely shifts quite frequently, but the it's undeniable that there's a significant cohort that dislikes the man - and that's bad if you're trying to use his ideas as symbolic rallying cries.
Intelligent Life Backup System Seems Ineffective
One of the other arguments for Mars is that it would serve as a contingency plan if life were ever wiped from Earth.
And maybe I'm selfish but I just don't see why I'm supposed to care. So I (and everyone I know and love) die… but it's okay because 0.00001% of the population survived on an off world bunker? This does not benefit me - whether my ashes are carried silently through a lifeless universe or whether they're studied by future generations of the the Martian survivors it doesn't actually change anything in my life.
And realistically you'd need a sizeable human population on Mars for it to be self-sustaining. How many people would you need for it to be genetically viable across multiple generations? Maybe 40k? How many years of weaning and support would it take to make a self sufficient Mars colony? Probably at least 50? Likely a lot more. There are settlements in remote locations on Earth that basically are not self-sustaining and need constant support (particularly in Australia) so the amount of investment it would take to build a viable contingency plan is extremely high.
There is also an argument that the existence of such a contingency plan depriotises efforts to avoid existential risks in the first place. If the world's elites have an escape hatch then they have less incentive to solve problems that affect all the resr of us (e.g. climate change).
Regulatory Freedom Also Means No Protections
I suspect the the pursuit of Absolute Regulatory Freedom is the true motivation behind Mars posturing. Having a little corporate fiefdom beyond any laws or government oversight is surely an attractive prospect for any ambitious billionaire.
And yes there are most definitely faulty laws and flawed regulations… but there are also good ones that offer people protections, which corporate overlords would be disinclined to reintroduce. Would a corporate owned colony be in any rush to enact rules preventing unfair dismissal, or protecting the right to strike or protecting annual leave? It seems doubtful. Maybe eventually their hand would get forced, but they’d have to be dragged kicking and screaming to get there.
And advocating for obviously unworkable stupid political systems again strikes me as Mars plans being half baked and self-motivated.
In summary, I think going to mars would cost lot, would yield limited technological and economic merit, would take a long time to see any benefits pay off, would likely replicate many dysfunctions on Earth and would likely divert funds away from worthier causes on Earth.