gb, I found myself skimming your post as my eyes glazed over with the pile of statistics and numbers. That's not to express disrespect for your efforts, but to say that it's consistent with my thesis: Rational and especially numerical arguments are nowhere near as powerful as visceral gut arguments.
Raoul came up with examples of unexpected technological developments that short-circuited exploration schemes based on economic arguments. Energy sources that aren't based on He3 on the Moon are likely to come along that cut the economic argument for Lunar settlements off at the knees. Economic incentives for exploration seem downright dangerous because they have a way of blowing up in our faces that way. As soon as you dangle money in front of people, you motivate them to find an easier way to grab the money than your plan. There's such a thing as too much human ingenuity.
To address Raoul's original question, I think settlement really is the strongest argument for motivating large numbers of people because it's almost bulletproof against rational arguments. That may sound a little strange in the context of the relentless rationality of Space/Science, but I'm saying that if we use only rational arguments for space, we're always going to be open to counter but equally rational arguments. Rational arguments are debatable; gut instincts aren't. We can't be prissy proper intellectuals if we really want to win support for space exploration.
Space/Science » in reply to re: Frontiers and settlement
He3
The whole thread (41 posts)
- Back to the Moon, Moonrush way
- yes agreed
- Frontiers and settlement
- There are intangibles that are important in human space exploration
- re: Back to the Moon, Moonrush way