I think the point is that it's morally questionable to call it a "backup plan" as it it's actually viable. Mars is better than nothing and it's worth pursuing, but only with the understanding that maintaining and fixing Earth is a much higher priority.

It's sort of like the autopilot thing. You shouldn't call it autopilot unless you're ok with people thinking they don't need to worry about driving anymore, and you shouldn't call Mars a backup plan unless you're ok with people thinking they don't need to worry about Earth anymore, because Mars will be there if we ever need it.

Is this really the semantics "backup plan" has for many people? For me it's something that's very inferior to the, well, plan.

Mars is not just inferior, it is almost literally not an option. It might be someday, and that's why it's worth pursuing, but even in the forseeable future it would just be a horrible, suicidal backup plan for like a couple hundred people.

The context of the quote is a response to people who are really enthusiastic about actually being Mars colonists. "It’s a lot easier to imagine a few scientists spending a year or two at a small Martian research station, like the ones in Antarctica, than it is to imagine thousands of people emigrating permanently to a Martian metropolis."

Building a colony in a salt mine would be an easier backup plan than a Martian one. Maybe you need to scrub radiation and smallpox out of your air but at least you have air! Admittedly solar power would be off the table, but almost everything else is easier.

Yeah, if the backup plan was as good as the plan, it would just be the plan. :)

>you shouldn't call Mars a backup plan unless you're ok with people thinking they don't need to worry about Earth anymore, because Mars will be there if we ever need it.

That would make it plan A. Backup plans are for when the primary plan ends in failure. Obviously a tiny city scraping by on Mars by itself while billions die in WW3 is not the goal.

But would the knowledge that such a tiny city exists reduce the likelihood that mankind will collectively act to preserve earth (when that preservation is inconvenient, or even painful)?

After all...there's always Plan B, right?

The idea that some astronauts would survive doesn't make me feel like condemning myself and billions of other people to death. But, I can't speak for everyone.

And I certainly agree with you; however, the "Plan B" narrative is strong - strong enough to potentially mobilize significant financial and engineering resources toward the cause. When the narrative states that "man must become a multi-planetary species" very few people are thinking that those extraterrestrial environments will be spartan, hostile, and (possibly) reliant on earth resources. They imagine Earth v2 - but better because science (fiction).

If we're need the public to change their behavior to preserve the habitability of this planet, then giving them excuses for inaction may not be productive.

It could also be a great live demonstration how nearly impossible it is to live without a functioning Earth-ecosystem around us. Especially if it doesn't work out exactly as planned.

Until we bioengineer better suited humans.