As you may be aware, humans (by which we mean superrich billionaires and NASA) have a plan to create colonies on Mars. But is this a good idea or not?

A City on Mars rocketed into our lives back in November 2023. Using a blend of science, intensive research, and humour we get an accessible space type book filled with details us laypeople can comprehend.

Think of it as like Carlo Rovelli’s Seven Brief Lessons in Physics (2014), but with a heavy focus on the red planet. That’s no bad thing (unless you’re pro-Mars visits).

A City on Mars: Can We Settle Space, Should We Settle Space, and Have We Really Thought This Through?

You may be able to tell from its title, this isn’t a book that endorses human efforts to get to Mars (and colonise it). Most of the time in the news we’re told nothing other this being a brilliant idea!

It’s actually quite daring, if not brave, to challenge the norm of—yep, let’s go to Mars because that’s what humans do is explore stuff, innit.

Kelly Weinersmith is an American biologist and writer, while her husband Zach is a cartoonist. The former performed a meticulous amount of research for this book. She toured through a vast amount of research papers and science whatnots to inform the book’s tone. Of which, yes, the couple argue it’s not a good idea to go to Mars.

Not least as the planet is goddamn horrible. Because:

• It’s a long way off.
• Getting there is incredible difficult (not least due to the deep space radiation).
• Soil laden with toxic chemicals.
• Thin carbonic atmosphere that results in Mars-wide dust storms.

The argument put forth is just how brutal an environment space, and other planets, well and truly are. As in, very difficult places to live.

“The Moon isn’t just sort of a gray Sahara without air. Its surface is made of jagged, electrically charged microscopic glass and stone, which clings to pressure suits and landing vehicles. Nor is Mars just an off-world Death Valley—its soil is laden with toxic chemicals, and its thin carbonic atmosphere whips up worldwide dust storms that blot out the Sun for weeks at a time. And those are the good places to land.”

It’s a divisive argument (duh). And to make the book as accessible for the layperson as possible, it uses an offbeat sense of humour to make its point. That’s one of the things that attracted us to reading A City on Mars, but it turned out being one of the things we didn’t like about it.

The humour (at least in our opinion) is often twee, unfunny, and jammed in around important points to the extent it works against the book. We’ve seen other reviewers say they loved the humour, so that’s on a subjective level and all that. It goes much like this.

“However, under many modern interpretations, and absolutely under the American interpretations, everybody can use as much of the [Moon’s] surface as they like. Let’s sit on that for a second: you can use the entire lunar surface any way you please, ad libitum, as long as you never say ‘This is mine in the sense of being my territory.’ Legally, we could probably write ‘The Moon Belongs to the Weinersmiths, You Filthy Earth Scum’ in giant letters visible from Earth, as long as we didn’t claim to actually believe it.”

Whether you enjoy much of the book depends on whether that sort of humour floats your boat. Again, it does make the work very accessible as it doesn’t get weighed down in impenetrable science jargon—one bonus right there.

Deconstructing The Most Popular of Space Myths

Before getting to the arguments for and against, we’ll take a quick look at chapter one of the work. This opening phase considers one of the most popular pro-Mars arguments—the idea going to other planets will further, and protect, the human race.

A City on Mars immediately shoots down this idea.

“Over the short-term, space settlement won’t help with any catastrophe you’re imagining right this second. Not global warming, not nuclear war, not overpopulation, probably not even a dinosaur-style asteroid event. Why? In short, because space is so terrible that in order to be a better option than Earth, one calamity won’t do. An Earth with climate change and nuclear war and, like, zombies and werewolves is still a way better place than Mars. Staying alive on Earth requires fire and a pointy stick. Staying alive in space will require all sorts of high-tech gadgets we can barely manufacture on Earth. We’ll elaborate on all of this over the course of the book, but the basic deal is that no off-world settlement anytime remotely soon will be able to survive the loss of Earth. Getting any kind of large settlement going will be hard enough, but economic independence may require millions of people.”

Yes, then, we think that’s the crux of the issue.

Even if Bezos and co. get a Mars colony on the go, any problems on Earth and it’s kind of irrelevant. The Mars colony will be 100% reliant on everyone on Earth sending up supplies and the like.

Away from that, the main SPACE BOOSTER THRUST of the book is the debate over whether or not to colonise Mars. Of which there are two arguments.

Argument 1: Mars Settlements the Case Against

One of our favourite YouTubers, Answers With Joe tackled Mars a few years ago. It’s fair to say he was rather critical of the idea, infuriating a lot of people in the process and receiving a swarm of “party pooper” accusations.

As the Mars conquest, for many people, represents humanity at its best.

Heroic deeds and great minds pushing on to get to new worlds, furthering our reach and ensuring long-term survival of the species (with the added bonus we might meet some space babes along the way).

Scott eventually caught up with Andy Weir (former programmer turned novelist of The Martian). The latter has said space travel will become more feasible for Mars missions once there’s a cure for cancer… indeed.

A City on Mars takes this all a massive step forward, proposing the borderline impossibility of being up on Mars for extended periods. The result for human physiology, psychology, and everything else is such a colossal unknown it seems deeply troubling how this is being parked to one side.

Just getting to Mars, with astronauts being pelted with radiation over many months, is a big enough health dilemma.

But what about when they spend months on Mars, with its thin atmosphere stripped over millions of years by solar winds, being pelted with more radiation?

Things like this are what make the Mars missions seemingly insurmountable in difficulty, no matter how many geniuses you throw at the problem to find workarounds.

Argument 2: Mars Settlements the Case For

The likes of NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) have full features dedicated to this endeavour. With the former on Humans to Mars it’s argued:

“Mars remains our horizon goal for human exploration because it is one of the only other places we know where life may have existed in the solar system. What we learn about the Red Planet will tell us more about our Earth’s past and future, and may help answer whether life exists beyond our home planet.”

NASA and ESA make the case for human exploration. Then you’ve got the likes of Elon Musk’s SpaceX as the spacecraft manufacturer and launch service provider.

Musk is incredibly ambitious with this. On SpaceX’s Mars & Beyond it states:

“You want to wake up in the morning and think the future is going to be great – and that’s what being a spacefaring civilization is all about. It’s about believing in the future and thinking that the future will be better than the past. And I can’t think of anything more exciting than going out there and being among the stars.”

Now, Musk would hate our woke lefty mind virus for pointing this out but… all that money he’s invested into SpaceX (or Twitter) could have been used so everyone can wake up on Earth each morning with a great future now.

But there you go. That’s lefties for you.

However, there’s also the scientific side of it NASA and the ESA promote. The latter states:

“The scientific reasons for going to Mars can be summarised by the search for life, understanding the surface and the planet’s evolution, and preparing for future human exploration.”

As in, by going up there we could learn more about the nature of being in a way that may make life on Earth better for everyone. There’s also the economic potential, as Mars’ surface has all manner of valuable resources ready and waiting to be plundered (again, some rich person would get richer from that).

Plus, there’s just the furthering of the human race bit.

If we screw up Earth beyond repair? Hurray, there’s Mars and the human race will be able to to continue on living there (before having to move eventually as the Sun is going to explode and all that).

The adventure of it all, exotic as it is, remains very enticing for a lot of people. It’s one giant leap for humankind, all right, and brings with it the extra potential of finally meeting some space babes.

The Professional Moron Verdict (on going to Mars and reading this book)

Good book! Well worth a read if this type of thing intrigues you, although the type of humour used is a bit hit-and-miss.

However, the case against going to Mars is made rather convincingly and we enjoyed the harsh reality check. That will, of course, go ignored by the people trying to get us up there. Regardless, it’s welcome just to have a convincing counterargument out there beyond the obvious, “Of course we should go to Mars! Because!”

Our opinion on this is irrelevant as it’s rich folk who decide this stuff… but we don’t agree with all this Mars mania.

In 2021, the UN’s director of World Food Programme noted 2% of Elon Musk’s wealth could solve world hunger issues. Just a minute smidgen of the combined wealth of Musk, Bezos, and various other billionaires could solve so many socioeconomic crises.

Instead, the money is going towards getting humans on Mars (and various other big business deals) because if you’re poor you should work harder etc.

So, yes, as you may be able to tell we’re not applying to NASA to be one of the first humans on Mars. As, frankly, the planet sounds godawful. And they don’t have sushi up there. Or tea. Or hamsters.

Earth is where it’s at! How about we make sure this place is nice and habitable for the centuries to come?