I, personally, don’t have an issue with it. The context was that I am trying to give a good faith steelman argument for those who don’t think it’s the best use of money when other, perhaps more pressing, problems exist here “on earth” (quotations being used because I think the original intent of the phrase was too literally interpreted).

To extend that argument, is it better to give underserved internet access or spend the money on something that potentially saves someone’s life, like mosquito netting? I think even though HN is very in love with high tech problems, many would argue we could serve humanity better by prioritizing those lower tech problems that tend to solve more fundamental needs