> Why are we not placing a DNA/Seed-vault on the moon

Because it's expensive to get it there, useless on the moon, and expensive to get it somewhere useful in the event of need, all because of gravity wells.

> Why are we not depositing resources on the moon

Same answer.

> Why dont we plan, plant, place autonomous robotic pods on the moon that can be called down/up carrying various resources

And, again, same answer, both for the pods and the resources themselves.

> what happens to the moon if we transfer water/create water on the moon

It boils off and leaves, possibly after freezing for a while, depending on the time of lunar day you deposit the water, IIRC.

> Why cant this be a global effort

Because a really bad idea doesn't get better because more people are involved.

> Why aren't we actually practicing mars colonization on the moon first?

Because the Moon isn't very much like Mars in ways relevant to colonization, so there is no value to doing that. While perhaps some relevant technologies might benefit from the shorter feedback cycles of Earth-Moon missions for refinement, the costs of such missions are close enough to Earth-Mars missions that it's generally not worth it to go to the Moon if your goal is Mars. Just go to Mars.

To the DNA/Seed Vault question, I heard a really interesting point of view expressed which resonated with me. It was this, "Why not create a mechanism to record all of our knowledge and information so that if an extinction level event occurs we can come back from the brink?" And the answer was "If we allow ourselves to become nearly extinct, especially through our own action or inaction, isn't is more reasonable to let what ever comes after us to have a fresh start?"

Can you imagine if all of a sudden, out of the ground a bunch of Dinosaur scientists emerged having kept themselves in cryo-suspension with all of their dinosaur tech to reestablish themselves as the dominant species on the planet? Are they going to be conflicted? Do they just eradicate humans because they were first? I'm sure Charlie Stross could make up a good story along those lines. I'd read it for sure :-)

But the meta question, the big one behind all those "Why"s up there, is well understood. As a planet, and certainly as a nation, and even on as small a scale as a city, we are divided in our understanding of the reasoning for why being a multiplanet species might be more important than say, feeding the starving in Sudan.

You can have a room of 100,000 people shouting in unison to colonize Mars and that is an insignificant fraction of the people who would have to be aligned to make that the generally agreed upon plan.

And that is one of the things that makes this announcement so amazing to me. When we achieve that moment where a small enough group of individuals can effect a legitimate colonization effort, then it can happen without consensus of a nation-state and can proceed based on the self interest of a much smaller group. And while it is a staple in science fiction that corporations have fleets of space craft they use to achieve their interplanetary goals like an inter-solar Dutch East India company, I never expected it to be possible for a company to be able to do that in my lifetime.