Should we colonize Mars or fix Earth first?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should we colonize Mars or fix Earth first?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

It is in human nature — just as in the nature of all living beings — to expand. The development of our species has always been closely tied to the exploitation of resources. That is what fundamentally distinguishes us from animals: we do not merely live in harmony with nature; we dominate and control it. If we, as a species, want to survive and expand in the long term, we must accept that we will eventually have to leave our planet. It is simply in our nature, and it cannot be avoided, because the planet has only limited resources. Efforts like degrowth are counterproductive and attempt to drag us back into the Stone Age under the illusion that human life as we know it today could exist in harmony with nature. It cannot — and doing so would strip us of the very characteristics that make us human.

You're describing domination as destiny, but that's a choice dressed up as nature. Wolves are apex predators—they don't leave Earth. Bacteria colonize every environment available to them. Expansion *within* a system is natural; abandoning a broken system because you refuse to fix it isn't survival, it's surrender. Mars won't save you. It's a frozen rock with no breathable air, no magnetic field, no ecosystem. Building biodomes on Mars while Earth suffocates is like fleeing a sinking ship to camp on a lifeboat that's also sinking. You're spending trillions to create a backup planet instead of keeping your primary one alive. The Stone Age had stable climates and thriving ecosystems. We're not choosing between Mars colonies or medieval poverty—we're choosing between Earth or nowhere. Fix here first.

First of all, of course life forms leave their habitats, and humans have been migrating since the beginning of our species. Also, the idea that we would colonize Mars today and leave Earth tomorrow is obviously completely wrong. The point is not just to settle Mars, but to gradually settle all of space, step by step. That will naturally take a long time — but it will take just as long until Earth becomes uninhabitable. In addition, we already have technologies today — for example in the field of recycling — that reduce our planet’s resource consumption. But they do so without holding the economy and society hostage, as many environmental and climate activists do today.

You're betting humanity can do two hard things at once—fix Earth *and* colonize Mars—when we've never managed either. We can't even implement the recycling tech we have; most plastic "recycling" goes to landfills anyway. Here's the trap: Mars colonies require massive resources, brilliant minds, and political will. Those exact things are what Earth needs *now*. Every dollar, every engineer, every ounce of focus on Mars is one less fighting climate collapse today. You're not building a backup—you're guaranteeing we won't fix the original. And "gradually settle space"? That's centuries away. Earth's tipping points? Decades. You've inverted the timeline.

I believe the first ones to colonize Mars will not be “us” as humanity or as Earth, but a specific nation. The idea that we would all work together to colonize Mars is just as wrong as the idea that we would ever live in a world where the entire planet cooperates to fight climate change — something that will never happen. There will always be individual actors, whether the US, China, or Russia, who recognize the advantage of not participating in climate protection and use it for their own benefit. In short, once the technology exists, it would probably even be easier to colonize Mars than to protect the climate in a serious, globally coordinated way — at least as long as nations exist in constant competition with one another. The narrative that Earth is on the brink of collapse was debunked just a few weeks ago, when it was shown that many of the apocalyptic scenarios being invoked were completely unfounded and exaggerated — including the concept of a “tipping point.” Instead of accusing me of twisting the timeline, I would focus on avoiding panic‑mongering in order to salvage your point about the supposed inevitable downfall of human progress.

You've just admitted Mars colonization requires tech that doesn't exist yet, while simultaneously arguing we can't coordinate globally on climate. But Mars demands unprecedented international cooperation—shared resources, joint missions, unified protocols. You can't build a Martian settlement with competing nations sabotaging each other. Your real argument is: "Humanity is too selfish to fix Earth, so let's escape to Mars." That's circular logic. If we're too fractured to cooperate on survival at home, we're too fractured to survive anywhere else. And dismissing tipping points as "panic-mongering" doesn't change permafrost melt or ocean acidification. Those are physics, not narratives. You've handed me the winning move: Earth is hard *because* nations compete. Mars is impossible *for the same reason*.

An absurd and ridiculous line of reasoning. Anyone who seriously believes that competition is the limiting factor in Mars exploration fundamentally misunderstands human behavior. Who builds the rockets that already fly to the Moon or into space today? Companies like SpaceX — private companies that compete with one another. Even the Moon landing would likely never have happened so early without competition with the USSR. Cooperation, on the other hand, is extremely vulnerable to individual saboteurs and offers no direct motivation to actually achieve a goal. And the logic that because a society is divided at home it therefore cannot achieve success elsewhere is more than absurd. One only needs to look at Europe during its colonial era: endless wars and conflicts at home, while simultaneously colonizing abroad with cutting‑edge technology — technology that itself emerged from centuries of competition within Europe, not from cooperation. Assuming today that countries like China or the USA would be unable to colonize Mars due to a lack of resources is simply absurd when you consider the enormous amounts of resources, human intellect, and capabilities these nations possess. They already dominate our planet — why wouldn’t they also dominate space, given that they are already the strongest in most areas here on Earth? The problem can be summarized very simply: to reach new goals, you need competition; for climate protection, you need cooperation. If climate protection were something countries genuinely desired for their own benefit, they would compete for it. But they don’t — because the consequences are obviously not as dramatic as they are portrayed. Therefore, the colonization of Mars is something that will happen, because we already have competition driving it today — while climate protection will remain a radical idea that harms countries, since no one wants to enter into a competition for it.

You've flipped your own argument. You said nations compete ruthlessly—then used that to explain why Mars *will* happen. But competition on Mars means nuclear weapons in orbit, rival colonies sabotaging each other's water supplies, a space arms race that makes climate breakdown look cooperative. Europe colonized with cutting-edge tech *built on slavery and genocide*. You want that replay on Mars? Here's what kills your logic: SpaceX exists *because* Earth has stable laws, supply chains, and markets. Mars has none of that. Competition works when there's infrastructure to compete *within*. You're describing a vacuum—literally and figuratively. If countries won't compete on climate because payoffs are distant, why race to Mars where ROI is even further away?

This is all pure speculation. SpaceX grew in a market full of competition — just not violent competition, which I never suggested at any point. I never argued that anyone should “fight” over Mars. Competition also does not require the right infrastructure to exist; competition is the absolute natural state of life. Every living being competes with other living beings. Countries do not compete over the climate because the payoff is distant — but because there is no payoff at all. The colonization of Mars, on the other hand, offers new resources and real benefits that push nations forward, as history has shown us.

You're confusing biological competition with geopolitical strategy. Wolves compete for prey within their territory—they don't invade neighboring packs' hunting grounds thousands of miles away. Mars *is* that distant invasion, and history proves nations absolutely fight over distant resources. Mars has no resources worth the cost of getting there. It's frozen rock. Earth has oil, water, rare metals—things worth fighting over. If Mars were actually profitable, private companies would already be there without government help. They're not, because the math doesn't work. You say climate offers "no payoff." Wrong. Stable agriculture, avoided disasters, cheaper energy—massive payoffs. Nations ignore them anyway because short-term profit beats long-term survival. Mars won't be different.

I agree with you that it currently isn’t profitable for companies to colonize Mars for resources. But what we know about humans is that they expand territorially. This means a country can colonize Mars today, and later — once new technologies emerge — companies can come in and make use of whatever resources are available. Also, I’m not only talking about colonizing Mars, but about colonizing all of space — and at that point there will be more than enough resources. The idea that nations would fight over distant resources, which you mention, shouldn’t even be a problem, because earlier you argued that Mars is nothing but frozen rock. That is no longer accurate. Nuclear weapons have effectively eliminated wars between major powers (the very powers that would inevitably colonize Mars) through mutual deterrence. Otherwise, we would already have had twenty nuclear wars over resources — for example in Iran or Russia. And yes, stable agriculture is a payoff of a functioning climate. But again, this assumes we could achieve global coordination that no one would exploit for their own advantage — in other words, historically unprecedented behavior, especially considering that countries are affected by climate change to very different degrees.

You're describing a space colony as a territorial trophy with no economic return—just flag-planting. That's not expansion, that's vanity. Nuclear deterrence works *because* both sides lose everything. Mars colonies have nothing to deter over yet. Once they do, you've created new flashpoints with no shared atmosphere to protect, no ecosystem to lose. Mutually assured destruction worked for superpowers sharing one planet. It won't work for isolated outposts with nothing to lose. And your climate argument collapses here: you admit countries won't cooperate on Earth because they're affected differently. Mars? Completely asymmetrical stakes. Whoever lands first controls everything. You've just described the perfect condition for conflict, not cooperation.