> 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.
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