[giantg2]

"Looking at it from an objective, systemic approach, you and yours have zero possibility of survival of an Earth biosphere destabilizing event."

And why would that be a bad thing? The question isn't about the human centric perspective (which you're still taking). The question is about what net benefit does humanity provide the Earth or, potentially in the future, other planets. Why would out extinction be a bad thing from a non-human perspective?

I'm not sure why you're bringing "greedy genes" into this.

[salawat]

As far as benefit to planet goes, I'll be honest, not tracking it. I'm tracking benefit to life and biosphere, which I do think is becoming increasingly connected with human self-interest, as we are very much the most active "shepherds" of the biosphere we inhabit.

Life as we know it will likely not exist anywhere but where we take it, and put in place the conditions for it's continued existence.

The Earth, or Mars having an interest or value impact is... Honestly a non-issue in my book. Call me biased against inanimate objects if you like, you won't be wrong.