I'll note that exploring space is very different from commercializing space. > You really honestly think you’re the first person, or this is the first time any

I'll note that exploring space is very different from commercializing space. > You really honestly think you’re the first person, or this is the first time anyone has stopped to wonder about it? I don't think that, I didn't imply that, and wondering if I was the first person to ever wonder that for the first time is putting words in my mouth. My question is whether anyone that was in a position to know and was also not being payed off wondered this. Given the lack of science around this, the major players I think are more concerned with going further than they are in really studying exactly whether they should. That makes no sense for SpaceX to devout half of their budget to study why they should not be launching rockets. If they are not studying that, who exactly is? > Of course nobody should get a free pass to wreck the Earth. That’s a cartoonishly absurd caricature of what’s going on. There have been plenty of free passes to wreck the earth. Examples are subsidies going out to industries that pollute. These free-passes go back in time, recall the train companies giving free tickets to those that would shoot Bison from the windows of the train. We can also talk about deforestation, that most old growth forests have been chopped down and so many tree farms are now taking their place (tree farms grow overly dense, and very sickly trees that have nowhere near the same positive impact as old growth does). There are so many examples of free passes being given.. Why else are so many rivers toxic and unswimmable? The fact we have so many things and areas that are wrecked serves as counter-point. Beyond this, I think 'serf' responds pretty well, I will not add further.