I’m not sure, but I don’t just mean physically destroyed but perhaps engaged in a new world war or ruled by autocrats. Either place could become that but if it happens to Earth it could set back human progress hundreds of years. It would be nice to have some more distant human thought, I think, with a broader view on existence than those of us here.

I think there are benefits to an independent settlement beyond physical destruction. In any case I’m saying Musk isn’t going there because it’s full of resources as was suggested up thread. He’s going there for the long term benefits to humanity he believes it will achieve. If you want to get rich in space mine asteroids. Which will probably become more viable if Mars colony ships ever routinely travel between Earth and Mars.

And even then Earth would be much more habitable than Mars will ever be.

Elon Musk may end up going to Mars, I don't think after the last decade anybody will bet against that. He could very well be this generations Neil Armstrong in being the first person to set foot on another planet. Which would be a stupendous achievement in and of itself, even if he dies in the attempt to land there itself.

But after that he'll either die there anyway when his resources run out or he'll run right back to mamma earth assuming they can manage to resupply their fuel and make it back here somehow.

Even then - if the Earth were completely taken over by autocrats, it would still be easier to construct and defend an impenetrable fort on Earth than it would be to construct one on Mars - else the autocrats controlling the Earth would easily conquer (or destroy) Mars as well.

Now, if we were to think of a colony ship or a colony on a distant planet light years away, that would make some sense, but that is probably a project for the year 5000, not 2000.