I feel that comments like this are a disservice to HN, for while the comment attempts to sound erudite and logical, it is simply moral relativism in disguise.
"Greed" is neither good nor bad, but instead it is a pathological optimization. Optimizing for profit, by definition, is an "unwillingness to acknowledge externalities", as stated by the GP. Optimizing for profit resulted in many bad situations for Americans (see the Love Canal and the Cuyahoga River) and it was the reason the United States created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), so that negative externalities could be converted into dollars.
To bring into the discussion "Teslas" and "rockets that land" changes the argument from the demonstrable "bitcoin is bad for the planet" to a morally relative argument of "yeah, but it got us rockets and Teslas", which does nothing other than prove GPs point: to say that that Teslas and landing rockets are worth the price of Bitcoin is to ignore or disregard the externalities!
And it's hard to imagine that the GP "drew the line" at Bitcoin; to take that as the position is making a straw-man argument. Instead, an interpretation that would lead to valuable discussion should be adopted, like the position that Bitcoin both demonstrates the flaws of greed and that it does so in a way that is simple to understand and demonstrate, especially when it comes to externalities. Financial instruments are complex and opaque on purpose, designed to confuse and obfuscate greed. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has a much simpler equation: money versus power consumed versus pollutants produced.
Finally, a suggestion to all: avoid acronyms, or at least spell them out on first use. It's highly likely that "SF" meant "Science Fiction" and not "San Fransisco". Knowing the correct definition of an acronym can help avoid embarrassing situations.