Mars vs Space Habitat Debate (Was New Member)

I've followed the arguments and I think we've reached a point where we've
run out of data to support the debate. Let me clarify a few points and what
I think will happen.

The first settlements will be in space. The goal will be to colonize the
asteroid belt because we know for certain that it has mineral wealth we can
exploit.

Mars is a good stopping off point on the way to the Belt. Phobos and Deimos
might be used as way stations for traffic to and from the Belt. These two
moons also serve as bases for the exploration of Mars.

Mars will see scientific installations and some tourism established. If
geologists (areologists? marologists?) find something worth the effort and
expense, then regular settlements will follow.

"victoriatangoman"
wrote:
[There is nothing that Mars has that Earth needs.]

"Richard" replied:
on Mars.>

Victoriatangoman is right in saying that, as far as we know, Mars has
nothing that Earth needs. That's why we will colonize Luna and the
asteroids first. But Richared is correct in pointing out that we may
discover something on Mars that makes settlement economically worthwhile.
At this stage we can't say for certain what that will be or if it will
happen.

Since we lack data on what lies under the surface of Mars, we can hardly
debate the viability of Martian colonization. People have had a romantic
fixation on Mars for centuries, and popular belief is that, if we do send
colonists off the Earth, Mars will be one of the places they settle. So
there is interest in exploring the Red Planet. As to whether or not we do
build settlements.... pointless to argue. We just don't know at this point
if it is economically feasible.