Insane that you're being downvoted. Escalation to violence is an appropriate response to some things, but being annoying is definitely not one of them. It might be some people's first instinct but those people need to repress that urge and learn to either use their words, ignore it, or remove themselves from that situation.

#1: Heat death currently seems like the more likely answer - the universe seems to be expanding at a faster rate as time goes on.

#2: Assuming no true source of randomness other than initial circumstances, I fear you'd be right. Even if there are infinite ways that an initial big bang can happen, over enough iterations we would fall into a cycle. One universe would lead to another that eventually leads back to the start of the cycle (simply by virtue of these cycles existing, not being infinitesmally unlikely, and enough iterations happening). However, don't despair. Even if this is true, it wouldn't be you, it'd be a clone. And the clone might take dozens, hundreds, or millions of universes to finally happen again.

#3: Assuming there is a source of true randomness (as there seems to be in the quantum foam), nah. Chaos reigns over such large timescales, so one quantum fluctuation going wrong at t=1 second makes the universe not resemble anything we're used to.

Or... bad gift givers tend to have multiple discrete families?

I thought it was just the galaxy that was bound tightly enough and the local group would eventually go as well? Huh. I guess I learned something.

Not only what everyone else says, but space seems to expand at a constant value per unit of volume. Thus the more space there is, the faster it expands. Thus eventually (as far as we know rn) we'll stop seeing other galaxies. We'll be alone.

What unhinged raving. If you're trying to say the AI can reconstruct deleted data by questioning you and deducing where you're lying about what the dataset contained, you're wrong. It's not possible to reconstruct data that easily, let alone through a lossy medium like memory. If your point is just that AI will be used as lie detectors, then maybe, and they'll be accurate to some degree. But that doesn't mean lies won't exist.

Secondly, what the hell is the "universe knows"? Sure, live truthfully if you'd like, but don't imagine the universe will punish you for lying. It's just the consequences of telling the lies that eventually catch up.

Counter-counterpoint, it's still inefficient.

Hell, why stop there? Earth's pretty inefficient, let's strip it for parts and make some few trillion generation ships. Start now, we'll be there practically overnight!

1. Do you think anything without life is without value? There's value in studying Mars more than using it as parts. By the time we get that desperate, I would hope we're far beyond the solar system. And if Mars isn't colonized by then I would eat my sock.
   1. I have a hard time believing we get the technology to literally destroy a planet entirely before we have less melty metals.
2. So this is really just to get people's attention? To rally them for the "demolish our next door neighbor" plot several hundred years ahead of time?
3. My guy, I understand we're not monkeys. It was the simple way to say our brain is specifically wired. If you're suggesting we figure out a way to bypass all our natural instincts and predispositions from evolving on a big rock, then why bother colonizing the Solar System at all? Send the better humans to every other galaxy in generation ships and have them do it over there.
4. Do you realize that the technology to demolish an entire world (let alone a technical demo and passing it by all legislation required to do so) would take far longer than just starting to colonize? It might be inefficient, but so were steam engines and coal plants. Still brought about the modern world as we know it. Humans start inefficiently and maximize efficiency later.

1. We have absolutely no idea what destroying Mars could do to the balance of the Solar System. Maybe removing a planet has some consequences, even if it's just "we lose the history of Mars".
   1. Further, why destroy Mars and not Mercury? Much less impactful.
2. Why spend the resources to fall into a gravity well when there's a perfectly fine asteroid belt just a little further (and much more similar to the sort of habitats you seem to want to make?) Assuming, of course, that we somehow make some artificial gravity.
3. People tend to enjoy things like the stuff we were made on. Monkey brains like monkey things, and a planet is much closer than space habitats.
4. Slow down. Let's try to colonize a planet before we literally dismantle it. Your proposal is like talking about jetliners before the Wright Brothers were born.
   1. Also you need to colonize the planet in order to dismantle it, really. Unless we just send robots to do the whole thing, but I don't know why we'd send thousands of generalist robots instead of renewable humans to set up a dismantling effort with Mars' own materials.