[vacuity]

> Conquest means conquering.

I'm aware. I see it as analogous, though. Clearly many people would feel entitled to Mars whether or not there are pre-existing beings to wrest control from. The narrative feels the same: "we could do it and there's nothing wrong in doing it, so we did it and no one can complain". I only have further objections if there are pre-existing beings involved.

> Making nonsense arguments doesn't exactly advance your point.

You seem to be saying that manifest destiny that doesn't harm pre-existing life is fine. Let's say I agree to that (which I don't, above). To take it to its logical conclusion, you and I seem to agree that harming (sapient) life needlessly is bad. I pointed out that humans are, uh, bad at following that rule. True, that doesn't indict Mars colonization specifically. Also true, I have a bone to pick with how humans do things in general, which I think is even more pertinent. But we were already on the general-human-things tack by dicussing manifest destiny.

[JumpCrisscross]

> whether or not there are pre-existing beings to wrest control from

Maybe, maybe not. I question the relevance of a moot hypothetical.

> seem to be saying that manifest destiny that doesn't harm pre-existing life is fine

I'm saying if there is nothing living--let alone sapient--is harmed, it's not analogous to Manifest Destiny in a fundamental way. We have no cultural memory of colonising terra nova. So we're analogising to conquest, which I'm arguing is reductive.

This is closer to the first people to leave the African continent. Or first humans to get on boats and colonise North America and the Pacific Islands. Something motivated those people into the unknown, and while an element of that is preserved in Manifest Destiny, it's--I'd argue--in a corrupted form.