> Exactly. Farming on mars is not a problem worth solving

I know you're being flippant, but this is a textbook propositional fallacy. (Affirming a disjunct [1], I think.)

In summary, you argue: farming on Antarctica is difficult, so we import food instead. Farming on Mars is difficult, but we don't want to import food. Herego, we shouldn't farm on Mars or bother with it at all. Alternatively, if X (farming is difficult), Y (farm) or Z (import). You're arguing neither Y or Z by, implicitly, rejecting Z. That doesn't make sense.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_a_disjunct

Resupply latencies not exactly comparable.

So I would say that yes, farming on Mars is a problem worth solving, and one that will be solved once there's a need to do so (that doesn't mean it will be easy or inexpensive).

The people who will be born there will likely not agree with you.