Earth or Mars? The future lies in choosing where, and who, we want to be

“What is that venture capitalist meeting look like? ‘So, Elon, what do you want to do?’ ‘I want to go to Mars?’ ‘How much will it cost?’ ‘$1 trillion’. ‘Is it safe?’ ‘No. People will probably die.’ ‘What’s the return on the investment?’ ‘Nothing.’”

 

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson recently fired a cheeky salvo at Elon Musk’s ambitious dream of colonising Mars. Dr Tyson questioned the feasibility of Mr Musk’s plan, suggesting humanity focus on solving Earth’s pressing problems instead.

 

Mr Musk, never one to shy away from a spat, hit back on X: “Wow, they really don’t get it. Mars is critical to the long-term survival of consciousness. Also, I’m not going to ask any venture capitalists for money...”

 

As Earth faces climate chaos, dwindling biodiversity, and resource depletion, a stark choice emerges: Should we invest in preserving our fragile home or make a gamble on finding a new planetary home? The urgency of the situation demands a decisive answer.

 

Mr Musk’s vision is nothing short of audacious — developing a self-sustaining Martian metropolis by mid-century, by ferrying settlers and resources via his SpaceX’s Starship. But Mars’ paper-thin CO2 atmosphere, extreme cold, and cosmic radiation make survival a herculean task. And let’s not forget the glaring absence of liquid water.

 

Terraforming Mars — turning it into a second Earth — would take centuries, not to mention technologies we haven’t invented yet. Mr Musk himself estimates a self-sustaining colony would need a million tonnes of equipment, costing $1,000 trillion — far exceeding the current US gross domestic product (GDP) of $29 trillion.   

 

Other worlds in the solar system also entice dreamers. Saturn’s moon Titan has a thick atmosphere and liquid methane lakes but is colder than a freezer at -179°C. Jupiter’s Europa boasts a vast subsurface ocean beneath its icy crust, sparking hopes of alien life. But living in these harsh environments remains a pipe dream for now. Earth-like exoplanets? They are lightyears away.  

 

In contrast, Earth offers something no other planet can — everything we need to survive, albeit under increasing threat. Investing in Earth’s restoration could yield faster and more practical results than chasing interplanetary dreams. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has laid out a road map to limit global warming to 1.5°C. The price tag? About $1.6 trillion a year. Steep, yes, but peanuts compared to Mars colonisation. Technologies like carbon capture, renewable energy, and reforestation can curb greenhouse gas emissions, while sustainable farming practices can ease the strain on ecosystems. But global cooperation is key, and that’s where the cracks show. The recent COP29 summit in Baku, for example, highlighted the growing divide between wealthy nations and developing countries. Instead of a climate funding of $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, which Global South was rooting for, developed nations mustered a meagre $300 billion.

 

 The Earth-vs-Mars debate cuts to the heart of human ambition. Mr Musk’s push for a multi-planetary species echoes the cosmic musings of American astronomer Carl Sagan, who saw humanity as “starstuff pondering the stars”. Cosmologist Stephen Hawking, too, warned that colonising other planets might be our only insurance against existential risks like nuclear war or asteroid impacts. They portrayed space colonisation as a natural progression of human ingenuity and exploration.

 

But philosopher Hans Jonas’ The Imperative of Responsibility offers a counterpoint: Humanity has a moral duty to care for Earth. Abandoning it for another world would be an act of hubris, shirking our responsibility to the biosphere, including other species, as well as future generations.

 

Investing in either space exploration or Earth’s recovery could benefit both pursuits. Mars missions demand innovations in sustainable agriculture, radiation shielding, and closed-loop life support systems — all of which could improve life on Earth. For instance, hydroponic farming techniques developed for Martian colonies might revolutionise agriculture in arid regions here. Advancements in energy efficiency and materials science required for interplanetary travel could spur breakthroughs in clean energy technologies.

 

Conversely, focusing on Earth’s restoration could spark breakthroughs with interstellar potential. Carbon capture technology, if perfected, could help terraform Mars someday. Efforts to halt biodiversity loss might uncover new medicines or sustainable materials.

 

Even now, space science bolsters Earth science. Satellites monitor deforestation, glacier melt, and ocean currents, while telescopes like James Webb deepen our understanding of the cosmos. The two fields are not rivals — they’re partners.

 

In the end, the question isn’t just where we should invest — it’s who we want to be. Are we a species that solves its problems or flees them? Exploring the stars doesn’t mean abandoning Earth, and saving Earth doesn’t mean giving up on the stars.

 

Our destiny, it seems, lies in a delicate balance: Reaching for the heavens while keeping our feet firmly planted on the ground.