Ahh. I interpreted more along the lines of the rephrasing: "... but not on the Moon because the Moon's 'rotational energy was spent'" - that is, no claim abou

Ahh. I interpreted more along the lines of the rephrasing: "... but not on the Moon because the Moon's 'rotational energy was spent'" - that is, no claim about Earth not still being under significant stress. Taken as a whole, I read the comment as possibly along the lines of "This seems reasonable (or obvious) - you end up with dead lifeless geologically inert celestial bodies like the moon if you take away the stress of tidal forces / (varying) gravitational pull", as an example to contrast/compare against.