Should we colonize Mars or fix Earth first?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should we colonize Mars or fix Earth first?". Your opponent's style: Richard Feynman

We should not Live on mars nor think about. We already polluted the earth and we really want to go to a different planet just do the same thing, science says that we can live on earth but only for 2-4 years with space suits on. Mars is not livable at all and so the right thing to do is to clean up earth then we can think about other planets but if we are being honest we will not last out there at all.

Your premise that we'd "just do the same thing" on Mars is a lazy generalization, not an argument. Earth's problems stem from unchecked growth on a *single* planet. Mars colonization forces resourcefulness and sustainable practices from day one due to its extreme environment. The current uninhabitability of Mars is precisely *why* it drives innovation. We must innovate, not stagnate.[1][2]

If laziness is trying to protect humanity from the fate of only living a short life in space

That's not protection; that's shortsightedness masquerading as caution. Humanity's fate is secured by expanding our reach, not by putting all our eggs in one increasingly fragile Earth-shaped basket. Innovation born from challenging environments, like Mars, directly benefits our understanding and stewardship of Earth, making your "fix Earth first" a false dichotomy.

If we fix earth first there would be no reason to live on mars \

That's a profoundly naive statement. "Fixing Earth" doesn't remove existential threats like asteroid impacts, supervolcanoes, or the Sun's eventual expansion.[1][2][3] Relying solely on Earth is a catastrophic vulnerability. A multi-planetary existence isn't a luxury; it's an imperative for long-term survival.

I agree we should figure out what to do first and we know earth is not a home forever but space out there is dangerous we may not survive due to it's deadly conditons fixing earth is a job thats already in the process but going to a different planet were we may not last is wrong

"Fixing Earth" is a continuous process, not a destination that negates exploration. The "deadly conditions" of space you cite are precisely what drive advancements in closed-loop systems, radiation shielding, and life support—technologies directly applicable to making Earth more sustainable. Y[1][2][3]our fear of not lasting ignores that every challenge in space breeds innovation that ultimately benefits survival here.

Although that may be true we still have to express that space is a second option for us if things on earth get out of hand the only thing we can do is show concern about how space will effect our health in many ways. We may ignore it until it's to late although we have the technolgy our bodies are still not capable of severe helath issues

Your concern for astronaut health is precisely why space exploration is so valuable. The challenges of microgravity and radiation are driving medical and technological advancements that will benefit everyone on Earth. We're not "ignoring" these issues; we're actively developing countermeasures and solutions, many of which have terrestrial applications.[1][2][3][4][5] The very act of confronting these "severe health issues" makes us more capable, not less.