article

I'm just going to say it: The future is determined by the trends adopted by the largest number of people. From the article: "At its best, the space colonization vision was sophisticated daydreaming, not a future that a large number of Americans wanted to make happen." Human spaceflight certainly does not include large numbers of participants, spectators perhaps, but then the spectators go back to their mundane lives and forget about it. It's not like sports, which sustains itself on ticket sales. Human spaceflight sustains itself on the backs of taxpayers. And the taxpayers have to pay for it because someone else decided it was important. How much funding would NASA get if it was a non-profit organization? Would it be enough to launch the shuttle? If not, what greater need does the shuttle fulfill that justifies spending money from taxes collected from people who couldn't give a rats ass nor have donated their money without the threat of prosecution by the IRS?

There are some historical trends that involve whole populations however. These might be more useful in predicting what the future might hold. If you want to know what major changes could happen, look at trends in reproductive technology... how many people do you think might be interested in that? Imagine a "home hospital". An automated kit that can diagnose illness, take x-rays, do blood tests, urinalysis, sequence your genome, splice genes, perform in-vitro fertilization, prescribe medication.... all without ever going to a clinic. Americans complain that socialized health care is communist. What if it came in a box that you could take home and do-it-yourself?

Might be some demand for that.

What would be the ramifications?