Spoiler alert -- I'm gonna ramble a bit:
Used to be to the victor, to the brave, to the foolhardy. I like the idea of the adventurous, for here do we place no preconceived notions of conflict, no need for war, not even a premium on competition. All that's really required is a producer to gather in a LOT of capital and a guide with unerring direction, the selection of a team of fine actors ... huh. If the script is right, it could be like making a good movie.
No, exploration is not in our DNA. If it were, there would be no fight or flight choice, we would simply poke our heads in and find out if it's safe ... whatever it is. And if a body should fall back sans head, the next would step up and look to find out why.
Lemmings.
The explorers will be the primary researchers, the ones who wanna know who, what, when, where, how and why on paper, and then make the determination to send our first physical astral explorers ... who will probably do it all wrong, but still be honored as being the first.
Then come the pioneering traffic.
The spoils don't even have to be of direct monetary value. Science will advance, newer, easier methods will be found, pioneers will be born, and the west will open skyward, for Roddenberry's wagon train to the stars...
This will always win my vote.
We're going, ER. Likely not in our lifetime, but the path is already blazed by NASA and others. It ain't gonna stop.
Off Topic » in reply to I've never thought we shouldn't explore.
To the adventurous go the spoils . . .
