You disagree with me about the desirability? I did not touch on that aspect, only the inevitability. I honestly believe that homo sapiens will spread to the planets of our system and beyond. Blame Heinlein, Nevin, Roddenberry, Asimov, Clarke, Von Braun, and Kubrick for planting such beliefs in my head.
As for who is going to pay for it? Well, I can think of several ways to pay for it without forcing taxpayers to foot the bill. As long as NASA is around, they will continue to justify their existence and, in the process, do some good technology development.
Hint--the idea isn't to find minerals or rocks. It is to explore a new world for mankind to conquer. The question is who is going to explore it and what kind of society will evolve from this exploration.
Bonus Hint--Look at how exploration and settlement evolved in the Western hemisphere. Spain and Portugal basically conquered and settled South America. North of the Rio Grande was colonized by the English and the French and later other Northern Europeans. Judge the result for yourself.
New world to conquer, huh? Well ask yourself WHY your aforemention examples went exploring. Answer - ECONOMIC BENEFIT. They didn't do it for some airy fairy destiny of mankind thing. They were in it for the money. SO lets look at the ECONOMIC benefit of going to Mars. Your examples are not even vaguely relevant due to transportation costs.
A more relevant (but still not adequate) example is manned exploration of the moon. WHAT ECONOMIC BENEFIT did manned exploration of the moon bring? Answer none. There isn't anything on the moon that is worth the cost of getting there and back again. Like Mars, the moon consists of rocks and dirt.
We have an adequate supply of rocks and dirt right here. If you want to explore rocks and dirt in a challenging environment go to Antartica. It is thousands of times cheaper to get there than to go into space, and it has AIR. Yet no one wants to colonize it because there isn't anything there that is of economic value. Going to Mars is just a giant boondoggle to keep engineers employed by the government so that they won't vote for people who want to cut government spending.
Well, I can think of several ways to pay for it without forcing taxpayers to foot the bill. As long as NASA is around, they will continue to justify their existence and, in the process, do some good technology development.
As long as people (taxpayers) are not being FORCED to pay for it, I have no objection to space exploration. As far as technology development goes - I disagree there too. You assume that the technology would not have been developed if it weren't for the space program. This isn't really true. If you have never read Bastiat's "That which is seen and that which is not seen" I suggest you do so. He does a lot better job of explaining lost opportunity cost than I do.
Uhhh Nooo -- that was not the mission here and the scientists know it.
The question is who is going to explore it
No One
and what kind of society will evolve from this exploration.
None
Bonus Hint--Look at how exploration and settlement evolved in the Western hemisphere.
Bigger Bonus Hint: There were already people living in the Western Hemisphere when the Europeans came. There are none on Mars because the environment on Mars cannot sustain life.
While folks live in the space capsule on a regular basis, IIRC, they're only 200 miles away.
Oops....meant space station...not capsule