It's not even close. These people will go knowing they can't come back. You're only talking about getting lost. Space involves far more pernicious dangers. It's a 9 month trip just to get there, and then years before you eventually die or a method of return travel arrives. We don't know how Mars gravity or radiation will affect the human body long-term. You can't go outside ever again. Can't see a blue sky or watch a bird fly. In modern terms, you'll never again access the internet. It's possible that minor injuries are likely to be death sentences. And the money involved is astronomical compared to building wooden ships. Essentially, the psychological stress will be unlike anything humans have encountered to date.

I strongly suggest looking at astrophysicists' discussions about life on Mars and travel to Mars for a more complete understanding of the possibilities and challenges.

Why not? They are smart people. It's troublesome that smart scientists and engineers are largely guided by paycheck size and "exciting"ness, I stead of actual benefit to society or individuals. Scientists make lots of money developing chemicals, for instance, with little to no concern over whether the chemicals are positive or negative. They are just doing a job. Everyone at SpaceX is likely a true believer, but as I've pointed out, they don't like discussing the realities of the mission beyond whether they CAN do it or not.

Going across an ocean is 0% like going to another planet. There was air here. And water. And trees. And food. And animals. The travel itself was the only obstacle. On Mars every breath, calorie, H20 molecule and poop has to be accounted and provided for, literally. Neil deGrasse Tyson himself has come out against focusing on a permanent mars settlement.

I am not shitting on Mars exploration - only explaining the immense challenge it poses and resources it would require to settle there permanently. It's likely that in the first several decades, human trips will be one way due to water and food constraints unless some sort of hibernation is achieved, which means anyone who goes is stuck there til they die, which could be as little as a few years.

It's just a much, much more difficult proposition than any media outlet or SpaceX employee is willing to discuss. I also am unsure of the value of a permanent settlement. I have not seen the results part of the missions.

Wow whoever wrote that envisions a permanent settlement in 2032? Wonder what Ray Kurzweil has to say on the subject.

I'm not yet sure I understand the goal here. Mars is not a habitable planet and I would expect the resources expended to establish a settlement will be the largest project in human history, probably by an order of magnitude.

Leading futurists are talking about the singularity occurring in 2029 and being able to upload an entire human brain by the 2040s. The unpredictability of technological development and societal acceptance/adaptation means such a long timeline likely has a very high chance of error.

To be certain I'm only here for education and discussion.

So you trust that earth's societies will somehow weather the growing storms and still have both the means and the will to pursue extra-earth exploration. Understood.

Predictions that far out aren't really worth serious discussion, however. I wonder why anyone is even spending time thinking about a Mars elevator. That was my first reaction. "Who is being paid to even consider this?"

If president Camacho has any say you'll be the next secretary of space

No but it does keep trained scientists and engineers from demonstrably more meaningful pursuits. Human capital is all we really have, and it's not much different paying scientists to target Mars than asking them to make a 4 dimensional candy bar. It is wildly outside the scope of our current needs. Once again the issue comes down to who profits: society, or individuals.

Questions for futurology fans and followers: do you believe Mars will actually become inhabited and meaningful?

If you artificially remove a major component of a local ecosystem food chain, that is what happens. In your scenario, a human can replace the beef with other foods. That's not how nature works. If you walk in and kill half the deer, for instance, then the predator animals have less food. It's not complicated.

I suppose you have never heard of unintended consequences or seen the entire history of human attempts to "manage" the environment. It's moot anyway, since the anthropocene mass extinction began years ago and we are estimated to be losing 40+ species every day.

Bats and birds both eat mosquitos. These people would rather all animals go extinct than have a chance at getting a mosquito disease.

Until the food chain collapses. The world is NOT "for humans".

No possible negative consequences of killing all the mosquitos I'm sure

This headline simply describes capitalism as a hindrance to human survival.