A goal of mankind is and always has been to go where no man (or few men) has gone

before. Men and women climb Mt. Everest simply because it is there. Similarly, people want to
go to Mars because no one has been there. But what are the benefits to either of these journeys?
They both lead to cold, oxygen-poor, unlivable plots of land. The Earth is nowhere near its
carrying capacity, and even if we did need the extra space, Mars would need to go through years
of terraforming before humans could inhabit it. Arguably the only benefits of going to Mars are
the chance to find that we are not alone in the universe and to show our technological
advancement. But even these benefits are not uniquely generated from humans going to Mars.
Rovers and other probes are already trying to find fossils and other evidence of Martian life and
by sending rovers and other probes to Mars we have already proven our technology allows us to
reach Mars.
In no way is the cost of millions of dollars, human lives, and years spent planning worth
the sole motivator of saying "we did it." The statement is just political propaganda which will
only resonate for a few decades. Does anyone still care that we reached the Moon? If so, why did
we stop going to the Moon?
Neil Armstrong is still remembered as the first person to step on the moon, and so
perhaps, the risk to his life was worth the legacy he achieved. But rarely does anyone hear about
Buzz Aldrin and especially not the other 10 to step on the moon. Were their legacies worth the
risk to their life? Or the others on the Challenger and Columbia spacecraft who paid the ultimate
price? Certainly not. But even these astronauts knew there was a chance they would come back.
Sending a bunch of people on a one-way trip to Mars is totally unethical. Scientists knowingly
sending humans on a one-way trip to their death is something out of science-fiction, not real life.
Sending "suicide pills" with the astronauts would be the least unethical action of the whole
operation. At least the astronauts would have a choice in their death. Who would agree to go on
such a trip? Surely not sane people: Lonely people who will not miss anyone when they're gone,
Imperialists looking to claim Mars for themselves, and legacy-seeking people. Looking at other
first-time explorers like Columbus, Pizarro, Cortes, etc, we see that explorers actions are
controversial. They do what they want in new lands and forget about ethics.
Space should be explored, but in ways that are safe and ethical. The US should continue
to send satellites, probes, and rovers to places all over the universe, but should only risk human
lives under dire circumstances or under almost certain safety. We should develop on closer
objects before farther objects. Developing on the Moon is very feasible in comparison to Mars,
and yet it has most of the same problems. Many advances in spacecraft should be made before
any habitation should occur.