I hate how today "Because I really want to do it" is no longer a valid reason to do things. There always has to be some ulterior motive that's at least as big, if not bigger than what you're trying to achieve. And the main reason I hate it is because it artificially moderates people - those with big dreams that they want to do "just because" stop and ponder and, sometimes, eventually give up on them because there's no bigger "why" than "why the fuck not?" - AND it makes people feel bad for stopping and doing, for a while, absolutely jack-diddly-shit nothing because they felt like it. To me, the question "Why?" is a complete concept killer. We should ALWAYS be asking "Why not?" or some variant. From small things like actions ("Why do you want to build robots?" shouldn't be answered with "Well I want to make the world a better place and I think robotics is a good place to start" if it doesn't need to be; "I like robots so I'm gonna make 'em" should be a good answer - likewise, "Why aren't you doing anything?" shouldn't needlessly be answered with "I needed a break" when all people mean to say is "I got nothing important to do right now and I feel like doing nothing right now") to medium-scale things ("Why do you want to lose so much weight?") to deep, fundamental things ("Why does quantum mechanics work?"). I feel that we would be more productive by asking "Why not?". Because the question "Why" implies that there has to be a reason. "Why?" is the question of minimum effort - because "Why" implies that if you don't have a tangible goal that makes you do that, there's no point in it. "Why not?" makes us do things by removing the base necessity of needing a purpose for doing things - yet, by asking why the opposite of what's being done or of what will be done isn't being done, we get to think about the repercussions and consequences of our actions, keeping us reasonable. "Why not go to space?" "The reasons why not are inconsequential so I see no reason not to." VS "Why not speed on the highway?" "There's people and curves - I could get myself, or others, hurt". And it applies to science too - you know how there's a saying "The exception makes the rule"? I'm pretty sure we could get some VERY interesting insight in all fields if, instead of asking "Why does it behave like that?" we ask "Why DOESN'T it/shouldn't it/can't it behave like that?" and, from that reasoning, either find that it DOES infact behave like that, or find a mathematical model of why it doesn't and close down that path of reasoning until something else is discovered that may put it at stake (or until someone decides to have a closer look at it) At least that's my opinion. For humanity to secure a future for itself, it must start asking "Why not?"
Goddamn it. I had no intent of sharing this article because its whole "in the beginning, there was darkness" approach to simple passion is really a turn-off for me. But this is a great discussion to have. Full disclosure: my 2-year-old daughter hit the "whys" early, at about 16 months. I answered every "why" with "why not?" and found my daughter toddling about going "squirrel! Why not!" and "Going swimming! Why not!" which was one of the most affirming things I've experienced in my life. That said, "why?" isn't necessarily a bad question. Elon Musk's "why" is similar to yours - he feels that humanity is doomed if we continue to keep all our "eggs in one basket" and that without the concerted effort of dedicated visionaries, we will be the eventual victims of a Tunguska or similar. The man has stated publicly how much he loves The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein; the probability of his not having read "The Man Who Sold The Moon" is effectively nil. Elon Musk wants to give the stars to humanity, pure and simple. But it could be argued that terraforming Earth is a hell of a lot easier than terraforming Mars, and that a tiny effort here is worth a heroic effort there. Securing the safety of a planet that gives six billion of us a place to live should count for more than shuffling a million of them off to a place that makes Antarctica look like Eden. But you know what? It's not my money. And to be fair, Musk has put a great deal of effort into reducing our dependence on oil. His is not a singular approach. There are reasons to ask why, and reasons to ask why not. I find that the more simply you can ask them the more honestly you can find the answer. This whole "whoa! .gifs from Song of the South to explain orbital mechanics!" schtick is the most annoying approach I've ever seen.
That was my point though - I don't personally believe that humanity is done for if we don't colonize other worlds - nature is a tenacious damsel, and we're at least half as tenacious as it, we'll find a way. I'm saying that it's the "public, noble reason" he put forwards. Deep down, I'm not certain his reason isn't "I'm going to Mars and that's that". Sure, his actions will benefit all of humanity - but his plan, first and foremost, is to either have himself or another person step on Mars just 'cause that's what he wants to do. And that's the nifty thing about Earth - in theory, I'm pretty sure it's self-terraforming. From sunlight, thunder and elements, it created life. And then that life proceeded to survive 5 extinctions events. Humanity itself survived one - and without the tech we have today. There's only a few ways I know that could end that cycle of survival - and 90% of them is us, and we REALLY have to try (and life will be unbearable way before then - if humans have a certain driving force, it's absolutely comfort). As for Antartica looking like Eden - IIRC that's a stretch, as there's some places on Earth they use for simulating Mars - the only big disadvantage is that the atmosphere is thin and not breathable. Venus, on the other hand... Anyway - sure, "why" isn't a bad question - I just find it tends to railroad thought threads. And I completely agree with the "Whoa" thing.
Perhaps the bigger disadvantage is Mars's lack of a magnetic field to deflect cosmic rays, which will result in radiation poisoning for anyone attempting to reside on the surface. A Mars colony looks like a foxhole with an antenna. Not too sexy. To say that some terraforming is needed is an understatement.
That's nothing we CAN fix though - not without geoengineering, we most likely would be better off by generating that field ourselves somehow. But yeah, I DID forget about the cosmic rays.