There is a pretty clear body of evidence that humans do not expend resources on something they don't value. And the question of whether or not the value of the planet would change with the expansion into space is a reasonable one to ask.
I believe what is posited is not precise self-interest so much as a reevaluation of risk and its concomitant change to the cost of failure.
As an example, one might speed down the highway with a perception of low risk of being caught, but that behavior might change if a sign appeared that said "speed limit enforcers are on duty." So in the presence of the new information a re-evaluation of the risk of being cited is undertaken and behavior may (or may not) change.
The question posed is whether or not the value calculus that currently drives the environmental and military engagement thinking of the world today, would be altered by the existence of a stable 'somewhere else'. That is a general question and not one that turns on precise self interest.
I do not believe such a settlement would change the value equation, as it would not apply to a large enough fraction of the current residents to change the calculus. Now I also would not expect the prototypical someone who was born and raised on Mars to feel particularly motivated to change what folks on Earth were doing, just as non-Chinese do not feel moved enough to intervene on the actions decided upon by that country's government. They might "care" and have some empathy for the resulting negative outcomes, but they would be insufficiently empowered to actually act.
There is a pretty clear body of evidence that humans do not expend resources on something they don't value. And the question of whether or not the value of the planet would change with the expansion into space is a reasonable one to ask.
I believe what is posited is not precise self-interest so much as a reevaluation of risk and its concomitant change to the cost of failure.
As an example, one might speed down the highway with a perception of low risk of being caught, but that behavior might change if a sign appeared that said "speed limit enforcers are on duty." So in the presence of the new information a re-evaluation of the risk of being cited is undertaken and behavior may (or may not) change.
The question posed is whether or not the value calculus that currently drives the environmental and military engagement thinking of the world today, would be altered by the existence of a stable 'somewhere else'. That is a general question and not one that turns on precise self interest.
I do not believe such a settlement would change the value equation, as it would not apply to a large enough fraction of the current residents to change the calculus. Now I also would not expect the prototypical someone who was born and raised on Mars to feel particularly motivated to change what folks on Earth were doing, just as non-Chinese do not feel moved enough to intervene on the actions decided upon by that country's government. They might "care" and have some empathy for the resulting negative outcomes, but they would be insufficiently empowered to actually act.