It mentions directly the idea that: > a “small misstep for mankind,” however terrible a “massacre for man” it might otherwise be. and > You ought to care equ

It mentions directly the idea that: > a “small misstep for mankind,” however terrible a “massacre for man” it might otherwise be. and > You ought to care equally about people no matter when they exist, whether today, next year, or in a couple billion years henceforth This means that there is put value on unborn, potentially possible lifes. And then you can start weighing these lifes against currently living humans. And then it becomes perfectly reasonable to perform genocide on impaired, or poor people as this would free up resources to focus on colonizing the solar system. I think this is a particular counter argument where this kind of weighting human lifes becomes a bad idea. Especially when comparing current actual living, breathing humans against potential future beeings. This absolutely neglects the needs of current humans, with all their human rights to be able to get the share in the world they require to live in dignity.