[vacuity]

That makes a lot of sense. I acknowledge there is an asymmetry that favors Moon development. I think "while cute to debate philosophically" is itself an amusing stance, given you presuppose that humans come first even metaethically, but not the main point. My main gripe is that, if you think the farmland/Moon settlement must be done for human survival, why is human-human wealth redistribution not on the table? (If you don't, your motivation is just shallow greed.)

[JumpCrisscross]

> given you presuppose that humans come first even metaethically

My metametaethical argument would be it's only humans debating the metaethics.

> if you think the farmland/Moon settlement must be done for human survival

I don't. To the extent there's a contender for necessary for human survival, it's farmland. This isn't a discussion about survival, it's about aesthetics.

> why is human-human wealth redistribution not on the table?

One, it's literally easier to colonise the Moon than do this on a global scale. Two, because that's a separate topic.

[vacuity]

> My metametaethical argument would be it's only humans debating the metaethics.

After which you take it as given that humans come first even metaethically? You can't from-first-principles your way around it; even your metaethics must have some axiomatic basis. It's obviously the same with me, and not a matter of right or wrong, but not acknowledging it is wrong.

> This isn't a discussion about survival, it's about aesthetics.

I addressed this in my last sentence. So then ultimately it comes down to human privilege, just not at a specific part. Again, I'm utimately going off of aesthetics too. It's just that you should recognize that, and not make arguments that revolve around not recognizing it.

[JumpCrisscross]

> even your metaethics must have some axiomatic basis

Sure. But that base is, for the present time, being set by humans. Not acknowledging that is naïve.

> ultimately it comes down to human privilege, just not at a specific part

How do you define human privilege?

When I've seen the term, it's been framed against non-human life. It thus doesn't make sense to assert human privilege against non-living entities. When one does, one isn't asserting a human privilege, but a privilege of the living. (Or more accurately, of the sentient. Those with agency.)

[vacuity]

> But that base is, for the present time, being set by humans.

This itself requires explaining too. Axioms can't be justified except by axioms outside of their system, so you're still relying on something to place humans on top. It is something you may agree with, but I am not bound to it for my basic beliefs.

> When one does, one isn't asserting a human privilege, but a privilege of the living.

Sure. I am against any arguments put forth by living beings for lunar development in the way that humans have right now. I was under the impression that we all implicitly use "human" for succintness; do you personally see a difference in how another sapient being might make the argument, all else being equal?

[JumpCrisscross]

> you're still relying on something to place humans on top. It is something you may agree with, but I am not bound to it for my basic beliefs

Whatever you bind yourself by, you're doing so as a human. That's my point. At the most meta level, our ethics and value systems are chosen by humans, whether they place humans at the centre of them or not.

> I am against any arguments put forth by living beings for lunar development in the way that humans have right now

Sure. Fine. This is common argument, if one I don't see finding purchase in our lifetimes.

> I was under the impression that we all implicitly use "human" for succintness; do you personally see a difference in how another sapient being might make the argument, all else being equal?

Humans means humans. Different sapient beings are irrelevant when we’re discussing a lifeless body.