You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Anarctica can't be colonized due to international treaties. And yet, it's been permanently occupied by a large number of scientists for decades. Other similarly inhospitable places like northern Siberia have been inhabited for centuries. This is a profoundly goofy argument.
OK, replace Antarctica with “the open ocean” or even “the bottom of the sea.” Why are we so keen to colonize space, but relatively uninterested in colonizing the hard-to-inhabit parts of our own planet?
I mean, I think one of those sounds a lot more interesting than the other. We pretty much know what's up with the bottom of the ocean. Human eyes have never seen most of the solar system. If I'm giving up my whole life to move somewhere, it's not gonna be the mariana trench.
What do you think we’ll learn from living on Mars that we can’t learn by sending probes? (Earnest question.)
Uncharitably, I'd guess "surface of Mars" viscerally feels more like "another continent" i.e. habitable with a few oddities, whereas oceans elicit the correct feeling of "no". OTOH kelp farming and other aquatic primary production (not residence) could feed ~infinite population.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
A THREAD ABOUT LIVING IN SPACE 
