> What the legion critics of Bezos and Blue Origin miss is that the company legitimately has the goal of ultimately saving planet Earth.
> Bezos has a compelling vision for space, and it is entirely genuine.
> He has the vision. He has the money. But at the age of 57, does he have enough years or willingness to ensure Blue Origin’s success?
The central thesis of the article seems to boil down to the above quotations, i.e., he's genuine and his goals are noble, but can he pull it off?
The "legitimate", "entirely genuine", and "compelling vision" to "ultimately sav[e] planet Earth" given in this speech is central to the argument, but it is barely even outlined in this article or linked articles -- beyond referencing O'Neill cylinders, mining asteroids, and vague notions of leaving Earth as a "garden". There seems to be no recording or transcript of this speech, nor even any second-hand justification for how legitimate, genuine, or compelling it is.
To me it all seems like the usual ludicrous utopianism that gets attached to space projects. Mine some asteroids, sure. But I see nothing here that even hints at a way to meaningfully reduce or stop environmentally destructive practices here on Earth. We will need to solve our Earth-bound problems. Bezos can focus on Blue Origin or not, it won't matter.