My whole argument was about the power of a romantic myth to move large numbers of people. We all know that the reality is that only a very tiny percentage of humanity will actually be able to emigrate, and that the population of these offworld settlements will be primarily grown in situ. Nevertheless, the vision holds visceral power over people.
Raoul asked for a reason to go to space and if all other arguments beside settlement were weak. My answer is that the reason should be couched for general understanding in terms of a familiar long-range goal--settlement--under whose umbrella all the intervening activities we support can be undertaken: Exploration and scientific investigation; followed by infrastructure development; followed by early pioneers; followed by development of an economic rationale for expansion that draws the true settlers. (The pioneers, sooner or later, will find the settlement too crowded and will move on out.) There's something there for everybody, which, as I interpreted Raoul's challenge, would be the basis for widespread support for space everything. I sort of interpreted it, in other words, in terms of PR.
Space/Science » in reply to A romantic myth, not great history
Yes?
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