Venus has no moon and Mars has two much smaller ones orbiting a different frequencies yet Venus "tilts" much less and Mars only very slightly more. Back to the drawing board on this one.
Without an extra-large moon orbiting at the right distance from us, scientists predict that Earth would be subject to a runaway greenhouse effect, as on Venus, or a permanent ice age, as Mars would experience if it had more water.
Omits that Venus is much closer to the Sun and Mars much further away, but the probably much more important difference of abundant life which has a dramatic effect on climate. Call it the weak Gaia hypothesis.
Anthropic Principle ... says that the features of the universe are constrained by the need to permit observers like us. The less delicate way to put this is to say that the universe appears to have been finely tuned in its fundamental force strengths, particle mass ratios, etc., for our benefit.
That's not less delicate, it's different and, if the author has actually read the book, the statement is an egregious case of spin (I could have put it less charitably). The latter is a religious statement (which I've heard called the Strong AP). The former (Weak AP) is a simple observation - the nature of the Universe must be compatible with our being here.
Fermi’s Paradox—Back in Style.
Seems like a slam dunk against alien civilizations in our galaxy. With an application of Weak AP you can probably draw another inference - a galaxy may only ever have one civilzation. Suppose "higher" life is quite rare so that it's very unlikely that two will arise in a brief period like that postulated for galactic colonization. Once one civilization is galaxy wide, it may be impossible for another to arise. That seems a likely outcome if humanity does so spread.
If that guess is correct then it's not surprising we don't see any others.