Citation needed, because real-world experience shows otherwise.

Mankind is heading for a larger capacity for information processing, this is the unstoppable arc of history. Mars or space doesn't figure into this equation at all.

But none of that is the problem. The real problem is that we haven't learned how to do reality-based politics and economics, and possibly never will. We're so bad at this we haven't even solved the kindergarten-level problem of creating a stable living environment on a planet with abundant water, oxygen, natural resources, free energy, and a ready-made (mostly) supportive ecosystem.

The idea that we might somehow get better at planning rationally by moving to a planet that has none of the above is really quite strange.

Haven’t we? I guess it could always be more stable. Where is the line for you? Is there any point where you’d consider this problem solved?

Besides, if things feel unstable to you, why would that be an argument against attempting to set up a secondary living environment on another planet?

If we had stability issues in our primary datacenter, would this be a reason not to create an offsite backup?

The problem was solved before the Industrial Revolution.

We have yet to come to terms with how the Industrial Revolution has changed and is changing the Earth's environment.

> If we had stability issues in our primary datacenter, would this be a reason not to create an offsite backup?

Does it make any sense to put an offsite backup in a place that is vastly less stable than your primary datacenter?

Since the industrial revolution, we have become excellent as destroying life. Not the opposite.

Yes, it makes a lot of sense for mankind, no doubt about it. Does it make sense for men and women though?

It's easy to say mankind. Flight makes a lot of sense for mankind too, but less than a third of the global population has ever been on a plane because for the remaining 2/3 it doesn't make sense to do so given their economic constraints.