WW3 would essentially turn Earth into Mars. If we have self-sustained-colony technology on Mars, we'd have it on Earth also.

And an epidemic is very unlikely to wipe out every human. The only chance of that I see is an engineered pathogen, and the builders of that would probably find a way to get it to Mars also if wiping out everyone is their goal (or it may accidentally end up there in a shipment). If it's deadly enough to wipe out 100% of Earth humans, chances are it would end up contaminating Mars also along the way.

And as I mentioned elsewhere, the risk of asteroids etc. are quite low compared to human-induced risk. The Earth-as-Mars rule above also applies to asteroid crashes.

I'm pretty sure our biggest risks are human-based. The frequency of natural mega-disasters is roughly about once per 50 million years. Yet Cold War mistakes almost triggered a nuke winter multiple times in the past 60 or so years. Humans are still stupid, with ever bigger weapons. The ability of small groups to cause big destruction is on an upward trend.

And a global drought is unlikely to wipe out every human (unless it's part of some other problem).

Our biggest risk is us.

A Mars colony will improve our odds slightly, but interstellar colonization is the only real solution (potentially). We have to spread ourselves far and wide to avoid being hunted to extinction by mega-evil empires (of humans or their bots).

Our future is probably akin to Battlestar Galactica, if we make it that far, even.

No, because the technologies for Earth-to-Mars travel versus interstellar travel are too different to have significant cross-usage. For example, a multi-generational interstellar ship will probably have to rotate (portions) to provide gravity to the inhabitants and thus the zero-gravity survival issues of a Mars trip are mostly moot.

I agree there are some lessons that are usable from a Mars mission, but it's spending a heck of a lot for marginal trickle. If we could have both, great, but given an either/or choice, I'd rather spend it on bots and get science and new vistas NOW.

if we don't get off this orb, we are destined for extinction.

What ever dooms us on Earth would likely also doom us on Mars. For example, if a mad invader wanted to take over everything, he/she would come to take Mars also. If run-away AI takes over, it will also likely infect Mars colonies.

I suppose certain mistakes like LHC producing run-away black-holes, or one-off suicidal acts are less likely to spread to Mars, but Mars is so close that most human-created maladies would also put it at risk.

An interstellar or extra-solar colony or ship would have a better chance. Just don't tell The Borg where you are going because they'll probably be able to move faster than us.

http://cdn4.everyjoe.com/wp-co...

Whaddya mean? It's currently the fastest growing OS, if you count Android & clones. QWERTY-Syndrome (compatibility & familiarity) prevented it from taking on Windows.

Like Unix people did with Multics?

Political climates change

The "space race" situation with the Soviets was a relatively rare alignment of forces. I don't think a pissing match with the Chinese carries nearly as much weight.

By the time Voyager II went by it was less of a deal.

Same with Apollo 12 and up. (Aside from 13, but that's not good PR.)

I think you are greatly overestimating how fascinating science is to the general population.

Pics of Io spewing or Mars sunsets fascinate because they are visually interesting & exotic. People go to the Grand Canyon because it's visually stunning & interesting, NOT to meet people.

I agree that adding people into the mix makes it much more interesting to the general public, but also far more expensive and risky.

And, finding plant life on a distant Earth-like planet would arguably stir the imagination more than doing Apollo again on a "red moon".

Since this could hurt Google's direct line of business, Google should buy PostgreSql, and pump scaling money and promotion into it to eat into Oracle's sales.

The Joker(s) runs the company. Whaddya expect?

I'm waiting for the Google Elevator

I do not develop big complicated documents on my phone.

Oh, they will be complicated after you make them in MS-Office.

it doesn't have to be an either/or thing

In practice, it is. The current political climate will not fund both well.

One advantage of human spaceflight is that you get science on human biology.

That's incremental knowledge and we don't have to go to Mars to get most of the same thing.

There is no robotic exploration mission you could possibly design that would gather even a fraction of a percent of the attention that a manned mission to Mars would get

When Voyager 1 flew by Jupiter in 1979, the news-stand publication covers were full of images of the swirling red spot, the pizza-like Io, and its spewing volcanoes. I saw those pics all over the place. An ocean/lake sunset on Titan via a boat-probe could have a similar effect. Or discovering the spectrum of plant life around a distant planet; it would ignite the public's imagination.

On a side note, another problem with Mars is that we don't know the biological contamination risk in either direction. Infecting/seeding either one with the others' life is very difficult to avoid.

Ah, the sweet nostalgia of BSOD on my smartphone.

Propellers ARE anti-gravity devices, just noisy fuel-thirsty air-requiring debris-tossing anti-gravity devices.

(It occurred to me that's also how my wife describes me, minus the anti-grav part.)