"Martian colony" is a kind of future anachronism, like jet packs, jumpsuits, and this [1]. We might make it there, but a lot of this thinking is rooted in assuming humans will continue living in the same ways because of our technology.

Ask yourself why. What's the real job to be done? What's the real economic situation? How does it map to human desires?

Robots will do the job even better than us and will see 10,000x the investment. Gradients of least resistance.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Snow_Cruiser

> What's the real job to be done by humans on Mars? What's the real economic situation? How does it map to human desires?

Human history offers plenty of precedent for this; "we want to run things our own way", "all the land is taken where we live", etc. I don't wanna live in Scottsdale, AZ either, but someone does.

Indeed — that's somewhat appealing to me — but it's much easier to sea-stead than to go to Mars and there's hardly any of the former going on either.

For sure, but until we do, it's reasonable to ridicule it.

(And I'm saying that as an optimist because I want the billionaires to develop that tech: the ability to fully terraform Mars into a self-sustained world is necessarily also sufficient to handle any imaginable damage to Earth up to and including a surprise impact with a moon-sized rock that excavates the crust and mantle everywhere to a depth of a few thousand km, meaning that things like greenhouse gases and biodiversity would become as easy to fix in that future as a single broken window is today; even just the bare minimum of a single self-sustained domed city on Mars means most environmental issues have to be "solved").