None besides Earth.

It seems that you're implying that humans shouldn't interfere with any celestial bodies because of the inherent value of their pristine existence.

There's so many engineering and scientific advancements needed to make space-based sustainable colonies using materials sourced solely from Earth that your position would delay any colonization of space past a few great filters.

I was enjoying your takes on preserving Mars, but saying that humanity should only be allowed to change Earth is nihilistic in the extreme.

Not even a cozy hotel on the moon, overlooking the earth?

I'd be down, but it's more likely going to be an awful penal mining colony armed with nukes pointed back down at us.

The moon is a useless place to locate military weaponry for use against earth.

It would take those nukes three days to reach earth, which is a huge amount of time for countermeasures to target and destroy them. And a handful of responding nukes could easily wipe out all lunar military sites and personnel, while lunar weapons could barely nick Earths military capabilities.

Why?

Why should we spend trillions of dollars to put a few people on a distant rock when we could spend that money to help many more people right now, and potentially avert the need for a colonial life raft? It feels self-evident to me.