You prefer keeping Mars pristine, in case it has life. I prefer colonizing Mars, even if it risks contamination.
This is not an argument over facts. This is a difference in preferences. I'm not going to convince you to prefer what I prefer. And the reverse is also true.
NASA is currently following my preferences, so I understand your frustration. The only consolation I can offer is that landing humans on Mars does not guarantee contamination (and robots on Mars are a risk too). If there is extant life on Mars, it will be different enough to tell it apart from Earth microbes. And past life (fossils, etc.) cannot be destroyed by Earth contamination.
I am fine with your preference being "I don't give a shit, I find it cool to send humans there".
But you seem to say "this is just the beginning of space exploration, and it will bring massive benefits to humanity", to which I answer: you should probably read about it first.
> But as I said, this isn't an argument over facts.
That physics doesn't allow us to reach a planet outside our solar system is a fact.
This is not an argument over facts. This is a difference in preferences. I'm not going to convince you to prefer what I prefer. And the reverse is also true.
NASA is currently following my preferences, so I understand your frustration. The only consolation I can offer is that landing humans on Mars does not guarantee contamination (and robots on Mars are a risk too). If there is extant life on Mars, it will be different enough to tell it apart from Earth microbes. And past life (fossils, etc.) cannot be destroyed by Earth contamination.
But as I said, this isn't an argument over facts.