Colonize mars

With the recent NASA announcement of liquid water flowing on Mars and the movie "The
Martian" making a splash at the box office, we might well ask whether humans should go to
Mars.
There is almost no chance that Mars has intelligent life and for decades we earthlings have
dreamed of living on Mars.
The discovery of native life on Mars -- even if it is only the most primitive microbes -- would be
one of the most important scientific discoveries in human history. NASA does not think so; in
fact, determining if life ever arose on Mars is its first goal for Mars exploration.
NASA has evidence from Earth that life can growth in very extreme conditions. These life forms
are called extremophiles, and they can survive under high temperature and pressure, endure
intense radiation and cold. Life may have evolved eons ago on Mars, and just been driven
underground.
We have to the respect native Martian life forms if we find them. Most likely they would be
microscopic. On Earth, we kill microbes all the time. So is it wrong to go to another planet and
mess with the natives. After all, if that had happened to Earth in the past, we might not exist.
We need to search for life forms before we can declare Mars ours. We leave the planet as a
preserve if there is native life, or settle down and assume that native life will remain relatively
unharmed. Should we intentionally restore the Martian climate by warming the planet and adding
water so that whatever life is there may better flourish?
We may not have the luxury of an exceedingly thorough search for life before humans start to
contaminate the planet with Earth life (humans carry a whole microbiome of organisms, after
all). There are humans at this moment planning to go to Mars and permanently settle there.
Several organizations have already stated they are going to Mars as soon as possible, and
SpaceX's Elon Musk has been clear on one reason why he thinks it is so important for humans to
go to Mars.
Musk believes that living exclusively on Earth is too risky. Humanity is keeping all of its eggs on
one planet, and given the natural and human-made risks in the universe that is simply not safe.
The moral value of having a "backup Earth" shouldn't be underestimated.
You might think -- what's the chance of humans destroying humanity? Look at how far we've
progressed in the last thousands of years. Sure, we have empires rise and fall, but we won't
destroy ourselves.
But with technological progress making nuclear, biological and chemical weapons easier to
obtain (not to mention new risks like artificial intelligence and nanotechnology), and the
unintended consequences of climate change, doomsday scenarios are real possibilities in the
future. It would be hubris for us to assume that humanity on Earth would last forever.
Now, consider this scenario: a nuclear war or other disaster hits the Earth and human civilization
is destroyed. Everything in history -- all art, progress, science, technology is for nothing.
Then consider if the same thing happens, but a small city full of humans perhaps a few thousand
in a self-sustaining settlement on Mars -- exists with records of human history, with animals and
plants, children and couples.
In the second scenario, despite the horrific disaster on Earth, all of human history is not for
nothing. There is still human meaning in the universe. That's an incredibly morally valuable
thing.
It's clear that the backup Earth project should take priority, even if it is potentially damaging to
native life on Mars. We could try to settle on the moon or a large asteroid instead, but as things
look, Mars is our best option.

NAME – KAVITA
ROLL NO. – 2K17/EC/081