<P> One response is that humans are not necessarily confined to Earth, and could use it and move on . A counter-argument is that only a tiny fraction of humans could do this--and they would be self - selected by ability to do technological escalation on others (for instance, the ability to create large spacecraft to flee the planet in, and simultaneously fend off others who seek to prevent them). Another counter-argument is that extraterrestrial life would encounter the fleeing humans and destroy them as a locust species . A third is that if there are no other worlds fit to support life (and no extraterrestrials who compete with humans to occupy them) it is both futile to flee, and foolish to imagine that it would take less energy and skill to protect the Earth as a habitat than it would take to construct some new habitat . </P> <P> Accordingly, remaining on Earth, as a living being surrounded by a working ecosystem, is a fair statement of the most basic values and goodness to any being we are able to communicate with . A moral system without this axiom seems simply not actionable . </P> <P> However, most religious systems acknowledge an afterlife and improving this is seen as an even more basic good . In many other moral systems, also, remaining on Earth in a state that lacks honor or power over self is less desirable--consider seppuku in bushido, kamikazes or the role of suicide attacks in Jihadi rhetoric . In all these systems, remaining on Earth is perhaps no higher than a third - place value . </P> <P> Radical values environmentalism can be seen as either a very old or a very new view: that the only intrinsically good thing is a flourishing ecosystem; individuals and societies are merely instrumentally valuable, good only as means to having a flourishing ecosystem . The Gaia philosophy is the most detailed expression of this overall thought but it strongly influenced deep ecology and the modern Green Parties . </P>

What is the difference between evil and good