There is a framework of "space law" that seeks to regulate activities in outer space, including the potential colonization of celestial bodies like Mars. The primary body of international law governing outer space is the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, formally known as the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. This treaty, which has been signed and ratified by most spacefaring nations, establishes several important principles regarding space exploration.
According to the treaty, outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is considered the "province of all mankind" and is not subject to national appropriation by sovereignty claims, use, occupation, or any other means. In other words, no country or individual can claim ownership over celestial bodies like Mars. Space is meant to be used for the benefit of all countries, irrespective of their level of technological development.
Your persistent “longtermist” vision of colonizing Mars, who cares about the “future of humanity”, characterizes it as a whimsical obsession that lacks serious consideration of the numerous, formidable obstacles involved. While the technical challenge of sending spacecraft to Mars has already been solved by NASA’s missions with the rovers Spirit and Opportunity, human colonization presents far more complex challenges that are not so easily overcome. These challenges span financial, biological, psychological, and technical realms, raising doubts about your ambitious timelines for achieving a self-sustaining city on Mars within a few decades.
Your shifting timelines, including plans to send unmanned Starships to Mars within two years and establish a human colony by 2050, are scrutinized for their unrealistic nature. Your notorious tendency to miss deadlines and make overblown predictions in your business ventures, particularly with Tesla, is a significant point of skepticism. Many of your previous promises, such as fully autonomous vehicles or other technological breakthroughs, have failed to materialize on time, leading critics to question your far-reaching claims about Mars colonization.
One major obstacle is the colossal cost of such a mission. Though you are one of the richest people on Earth, your personal fortune would be insufficient to fund the colonization of Mars, which is estimated to cost a staggering $1 quadrillion. Even if spread over decades, the U.S. government, which significantly supports SpaceX through contracts, may lack the political and financial will to back such a project. Without a clear economic incentive, akin to the commercial motivations that drove European exploration and colonization of the New World, the financial rationale for Mars colonization is dubious. It would be far easier and cheaper to terraform the deserts on Earth than to terraform Mars, yet humanity has not pursued such a "project".
Biological and psychological factors present additional challenges. The journey to Mars, lasting at least nine months, would expose passengers (or donor eggs or sperm) to dangerous cosmic radiation and the detrimental effects of weightlessness. Once on Mars, colonists would face a barren, inhospitable environment devoid of breathable air, water, and shields from lethal radiation. The lack of resources and the psychological toll of living (underground?) in isolation, far removed from Earth, would make human survival difficult, if not impossible. Do you remember extreme experiments in self-sustained living, such as Biosphere 2, where social tensions and isolation led to failure?
Furthermore, scientific concerns about the long-term health impacts of space travel add to the pessimism. Astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS), who experience weightlessness for periods typically under a year, have suffered irreversible visual impairments. The physical toll of space travel and microgravity, compounded by the dangers of cosmic radiation, poses severe risks for long-term missions like those you envision for Mars.
Your “longtermist” justification for Mars colonization as an escape plan for humanity in the event Earth becomes uninhabitable is highly arguable. Instead of investing in a massively expensive and risky project to colonize Mars, humanity should focus on solving the pressing problems on Earth, such as global warming. Quoting authors Kelly and Zach Weinersmith, moving from Earth, which may warm by a few degrees, to the far harsher and toxic environment of Mars makes little sense. Leaving a warming Earth for Mars is akin to abandoning a messy room to live in a toxic waste dump.
While technological advancements might eventually overcome some of these barriers, much of what you envision could be better achieved by robots. NASA’s rovers have already proven capable of conducting sophisticated exploration on Mars, and many of the tasks that humans might perform could likely be done more efficiently by machines.
Your fascination with Mars colonization stems from an adolescent-like obsession with science fiction. While space exploration may capture the imagination, the practicality and ethics of colonizing another planet are highly questionable. The priority should be fixing Earth’s problems, rather than embarking on a quixotic quest to terraform and colonize Mars.
In short, your Mars colonization plans are overly ambitious, financially impractical, and fraught with technical, biological, and psychological challenges that humanity is not yet equipped to solve.
Unless you have other intentions, which are easily recognizable but fall outside the current discussion.