I agree, but your comment might be better served by giving reasons why. An advanced species that we can observe is, by definition, a successfully self-reproduci

I agree, but your comment might be better served by giving reasons why. An advanced species that we can observe is, by definition, a successfully self-reproducing species. That is, a species that didn't die out in an early stage of its (social and technological) evolution. This means you have to ask (1) what steps did they take to avoid extinction, and (2) what social values allowed them to achieve those moves. The biggest threat we face as a species in the foreseeable future is the exhaustion of our natural resources. Ergo, it makes sense to reserve as much as we can for future generations to decide what to do with. Some argue that we should use them as fast as possible in order to blow past some (claimed) barrier to entirely technological reproduction (producing a self-sustaining system on the Moon, for example), but this strikes me as hasty. The difficulties of achieving this might be far more difficult than advocates imagine, and if so we're likely to hit resource exhaustion. That's before you even deal with the values. We don't have a lot of choice over those, but it's worth pointing out that many of our personal scruples are more compatible with collaborative than combative approaches to growth. The real moral challenge is whether the new frontier of growth (wealth acquisition) hits any wall before it destroys the environment.