hey, it's a lot cheaper to launch a few tanks of rocket fuel into space from Earth than a whole spaceship. It's true that Mars is chosen as a target for rover missions because it's "easy" enough as such things go. Before sending rovers to farther and/or vastly more hostile places, it makes sense to bone up on the tech on Mars, eh? But the reason the "scientific establishment" maintains interest in Mars is because, rather than being happy with unsubstantiated declaratory statements like the above, they actually want to know . Even though it's Sci-Fi, I almost like to believe that human beings move from planet to planet, using up local resources and destroying them. The cycle would be constant, and self-fulfilling: We use technology to get off the old planet, and to settle onto a new one. Then a generation or so later, we blame the evils that destroyed the old planet on our technology, and swear it off so we can 'commune' with nature / our new home. This works for a few more generations until we realize that it wasn't technology t Your theory ignores Evolution and the Fossil Record. However, if you were to say simpler forms of life (or even just matter) spreads from place to place and evolves on the planets, using up resources (and get rid of the predictions of what ultimately happens), then you have something very much like reality... Then we we fight over how to 'save' our new home