You're moving the goal posts a bit. Your previous post claimed that a "sense of the profound" from marijuana was somehow distinct from what occurs "naturally". But both are just brain chemistry. There is no rational basis for a objective measure for profoundness of an idea.

I did. It's not a study, it's just a review of other cherry picked studies.

That's sound like an unbiased source.

Even if we take all of those adverse affects at face value, they're either statistical noise or questionable casual link. It's not like smoking tobacco where the odds of developing lung cancer go up 23 times that of non-smokers. It's also not like alcohol, where tens of thousands of people die from overdose alone each year.

You should call up CBS with your life story. I'd watch that show.

That's why it makes sense to colonize the moon first. The moon is a harsher environment, but it's easier to deliver emergency supplies or launch a rescue mission. Colonize the moon, develop the technical experience and Mars will be a cakewalk.

The only assumption is that the colonization would be done with CURRENT technologies. The Mars Colonial Transporter, algae or bacteria as primary food source: these are still all on the drawing board, at best. Even the Falcon Heavy is a still in development.

The big problem is all the rocket jocks think that getting to Mars is hard part and they have the idea that since biology and ecology are "soft" sciences that those are just details that will work themselves out. Until someone starts a long term self-sufficient colony on someplace like Antarctica, its really hard to take an Mars colonization plan seriously.

The paper uses Mars One as an introduction, but its really a rebuttal of any attempt to colonize Mars using current technology.

Animals do not achieve an equilibrium by choice. They just die of mass starvation whenever they exceed the carrying capacity of the local environment.

Because we have much bigger houses with more appliances. Your flat is less than half the size of the average American home. Based on your energy consumption, I'm guessing that your flat lacks a washing machine, dryer, dishwasher or air conditioning. You don't have better technology, you have a lower qualify of life in a very real and measurable way.

When the sun goes red giant, Mars is likely to be engulfed, too. Feel free to try again.

There are no conceivable circumstances where Earth would be less suitable for life than Mars. Even during the worst extinction level events, Earth was a paradise compared to Mars.

Have you been in a cave to 30 years? When was the last time you heard the n-word used in commercial media? What TRADEMARK (not copyright) includes the term?

Adapting to new environments is exactly what humans are good at. From the arctic tundra to the Kalahari desert, humans were living in every environment earth has to offer long before we even got around to agriculture. If you don't think that humans can adapt to living on a post-asteroid Earth, something that a myriad of other animals actually did accomplish, then we're certainly not going to adapt to living on Mars.

You defeated your own point with that parenthetical. If birds, turtles, crocodiles, mammals, sharks and many other branches of animal life all survived that last asteroid impact, why do you think it would be a threat to human survival?

Lake Powell is an artificial reservoir. Without the government that built Glen Canyon Dam, the "lake" wouldn't exist at all.