"Why would you want planets and solar systems..."

Consider automated means of production developing resources of such immensity for your personal benefit. This level of wealth is literally beyond human experience, and why I call it unimaginable. Millennia ago something comparable was only potential through massively centralized hierarchies with hordes of bureaucrats, military forces, and even more slaves to perform labor, however skilled and unskilled. Each of those people, however, has their own wants and needs that inevitably create a tension with the whims of the Satrap. Not only that, but the resources available to develop are a tiny fraction of what will be available exclusively to whoever takes it. There is no competition (we are aware of, yet) for everything across the entirety of the universe. We don't have to buy it. No one or thing has a claim on it. It's free. It's also impossible to profitably take it by force once it's been claimed. It takes centuries to reach a star system at sublight speed. It's much more profitable to spend that time developing something else that no one else has claimed than on traveling to where someone has claimed a place and trying to take it from them. Trying to use an army to do that - when every soldier could just instead seize their own - is silly, especially considering automated means of production of WMDs that make armies of armed meatsacks utterly obsolete. We're just too squishy.

With automation no such tension between overlords and slaves is engendered. I am imaginative, even a dreamer, but I can only glimpse the onramp to such totality of wealth, of the eventual industrial might utterly focused on the whims of one family, or even one individual. Whatever might have appeared to be sybaritic, unmatched wealth in history isn't an appreciable fraction of what is potential to automated development of the resources of an entire solar system. Why this matters today is that means of production of modern goods and services have become available to individuals in every field of industry, and AI potentiates complete automation of these individually owned means of producing modern goods and services.

Seizing the means of production today enables beginning to create personally owned means of developing space, starting with producing what we need right here and now on Earth, that defunds centralized collective production that enables overlords to parasitize our production. This is the beginning of transcending all of history in which overlords, armies, governments and corporations have power and wealth, and restoring pre-centralized egalitarian meritocratic society in which no overlords, no corporations, no armies, existed and had power over free people. The sooner, and the more, people adopt decentralized means of production suitable to their personal circumstances, the more they retain the wealth of goods and services they produce, cutting off overlords and institutions from wealth they can only parasitize from collective production.

Just in economic terms, why will anyone work for a collective that takes most of the wealth they produce, when they can keep what they produce themselves? Why work for taxable wages to buy potatoes when potatoes are automatically produced by your automated aquaponics system? Multiply that potential across every possible product, and it becomes impossible to see how overlords, armies, and corporations could parasitize collective production anymore.

It is hard to overstate the dramatic changes this will bring, how society will outcompete government, armies, and overlords for wealth and power, reversing the trend that has been ongoing for millennia. It is significant, beyond my ability to conceive or describe.

Regarding uniparental DNA packages, and how aDNA technological advances have changed our understanding of prehistory, there are three kinds of DNA: Y DNA, in which a complement to the X chromosome is exclusive to males, passed from father to sons, while a father's daughters have one of the mother's X chromosomes and the father's X chromosome. Since women do not have a Y chromosome to admix with the fathers, the Y DNA of men isn't teased apart and admixed but is passed entire from fathers to sons. This enables male lineages to be utterly obvious generationally, and shows that extinction of male lines has been common since the advent of centralization where invading militaries replace all male lines in a conquered place. This is a change from pre-Neolithic cultural contacts, in which new male lineages joined the old, and diversified populations.

Nuclear DNA consists of the other 22 paired chromosomes, which are teased apart and bits of either of each pair are assembled into one chromosome that is then encapsulated in an egg or sperm to be combined with the other parents 22 contributions in providing the DNA the next generation has. This mixes and muddles nuclear DNA each generation.

And then mtDNA is the separate DNA in mitochondria, which were once bacteria that became symbionts during the time that eukaryotic life, essentially multicellular colonial creatures, evolved, and these mitochondria are passed down exclusively inside the egg, causing them to pass only from mothers to their children without being teased apart and mixed with the mitochondrial DNA from the father. Both Y DNA and mtDNA aren't mixed but pass entire from fathers and mothers, while the nuclear DNA is mixed during sexual reproduction.

Since Y DNA and mtDNA come only from one parent whole and entire, they are referred to as uniparental DNA packages. By tracking these packages it is possible to know the evolutionary history of people and animals in places where we can get enough samples of DNA from ancient bones. We are now able to extract aDNA (ancient DNA) from bones millions of years old, where cold has preserved the easily fractured DNA, because of the rapid advance of technology in this field. Since Africa has almost no such cold climate preservation, the oldest DNA I am aware of being collected from Africa is ~18kya.

Examination of NEA (Neanderthal) DNA samples of all three kinds has shown that Homo sapiens Y DNA and mtDNA completely replace NEA uniparental DNA across the entire range of NEA, first Y DNA ~370kya, and then mtDNA ~100kya later. The fathers of NEA were replaced with AMH (anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens - us) fathers, and then the mothers were replaced with AMH mothers. Finally, NEA no longer existed as a separate species at all, and all NEA nuclear DNA is now part of AMH nuclear DNA, except what has been bred out by evolution. They didn't die out, but were absorbed into Homo sapiens, as ~60% of NEA nuclear DNA remains in AMH genes after ~40kya, in small fragments that comprise ~2-4% of each non-African individual.

It is difficult to understand the cultural and societal conditions in which these interspecific interactions occurred, but what is certain is that NEA and AMH were inhabiting contiguous ranges, if not sharing the Eurasian range NEA occupied during that entire time. The range of NEA never included Africa, which is why only non-Africans have NEA DNA (except for tiny bits that have resulted from modern immigration into Africa). For decades there has been a claim that AMH evolved in Africa, and only emigrated out of Africa ~75kya.

The above aDNA evidence of continual admixture of NEA and AMH over hundreds of thousands of years proves that the Out of Africa theory is impossible. This is a major scientific revolution, upending understanding of human evolution entirely - but politics, which controls funding for research, is vehemently opposed to this fact because it derails the racist political power being imposed on the world today.

If you aren't grasping why some part of this explanation is relevant, or what some part of my attempted explanation means, please ask specifically about whatever seems nonsensical or unclear and I will try to better explain that specific thing. I realize the above is an attempt to convey understanding an entire field of technology in a few paragraphs, and I probably am assuming understanding of terms or mechanisms that simply aren't familiar to someone with specific expertise in other fields, and I am prepared to accept I have probably not done a good enough job to make it understandable to someone without specific knowledge of the field already.