How about we first master having a self-sustaining civilization on Earth?
There is no such thing as a self-sustaining civilization, there are only civilizations that haven't failed yet.
If a civilization is not killed by a failure of resources it will be killed by a failure of economics, or a failure of politics, or a failure of sociology, or in some rare cases it will literally be killed by another civilization, or in some even rarer cases by the (relative) world ending.
But like biological organisms, civilizations can reproduce. They can reproduce parthenogenetically (Australia,) or by combining traits with other civilizations (UK, USA,) or by mitosis (Byzantine Empire,) or by seeds left behind after being burned to the ground (Holy Roman Empire,) or by combinations of the above, or other means that don't quite match up with normal biological processes. (And no, those analogies are not perfect.)
Which is not to say that we should not strive to improve things here on Earth. But I seriously doubt we will ever reach a point where any civilization will be perfectly self-sustaining, much less that everyone would agree on when such a point has been reached. (If nothing else the eventual death of the sun poses a serious challenge to any supposedly self-sustaining civilization, and the heat death of the universe an even bigger one.)
If we wait for this mythical perfect self-sustaining state before attempting to "reproduce" it will only reduce the odds that there will be "children" civilizations when the current ones inevitably die.
"This backlash is nonsense," said James Green, co-founder of VR developer Carbon Games. "I absolutely support him doing whatever he wants politically if it's legal. To take any other position is against American values."
I think you meant to say you absolutely support other people doing what they want politically if it's legal, such as disagreeing with Luckey, or boycotting his product, or raising money for Clinton in response. Because taking any other position would be against American values _and_ hypocritical, right?
And yes, he's perfectly within his rights to say what he said, and i'm within my rights to point out the contradiction, and other people are within their rights to respond to me with disagreements, and etc. Saying that one person gets to have their say and everyone else needs to shut up about it after that is not how political discourse works.
Trump may be slime, but at the moment I don't think there is any sort of definitive proof he's broken the law
And oh look, while trying to find details of that i found a whole list of other illegal things he's done/proposed doing:
If there were it almost certainly would have come out by now and be front page headlines for every news organization in the US
These things do float to the top of the headlines every so often, but generally they're quickly forgotten about. I'm not sure why that is exactly. Because Trump's supporters don't care when he does something illegal or immoral? Because he does so many of them that nobody can stay focused on just one long enough for it to become a real issue? I have no idea.
No you see, it is easy. Either it is or it isn't; so it's 50/50.
I've got the same combination on my luggage!