Politics of space funding

John wrote,

How can space exploitation and/or settlement be presented as
something which helps them win their next election?

As I mentioned in the post somebody called a rant, but in which I am
both perfectly sincere and prepared to defend (which makes it not
the dismissive "rant" but simply an idea put forward in a civilized
way, yes?) the good hard-data discussion has now, as predicted,
ended with this same old conundrum, a human one, this time called by
the anticarrot "politics": in this particular one, John says the
politicians must see space exploitation [John,was that a slip? Or do
you really mean 'exploitation' and not 'exploration'?] as something
which helps them win their next election, and then things could go
forward--I am guessing John means that last phrase, sorry, but I
mean.

Well, the only way to do that, of course, is to make them think
their electorate cares about it. The electorate must in fact
actually care about it. But what conditions are necessary for that
to happen? Why don't people see it now? [Leaving out the esteemed
list contributors, of course.] WHY are people so negative toward
space exploitation or exploration? Every possible reasons proferred
would fail the history test, that is, humanity has suffered worse
(fill in the blank reason) and still stepped up to the plate--with
some exceptions that bear examination, like the hunter-gatherers who
saw and experienced food production and rejected it, continuing to
hunter-gather with subsequent lack of development but more free
time, according to Diamond. What is our deal, anyway?

Say, for example, we offer profit, or rather the unsure earning
thereof, as the reason why industry people don't do the satellite
solar thing. Besides the fact that the list seems to argue most
effectively that this isn't true, which makes the idea fail as an
explanation anyway, other periods of history risked what
proportionately represented as great an investment, with equally
unguaranteed results, and they did not do so out of wanton hunger,
in other words, were not forced to do so. Why is our epoch so
unwilling to venture the same, to try for real adventure? I have
offered one idea (that we have stopped believing in ourselves even
though we seem to suffer from the opposite, an inflated sense of our
own human capability to do the whole thing ourselves, to banish
God), and my understanding of why this happened and continues to
happen. (I would like to say I also think it is repairable, by a
single act of contrition and repentence.)

Will the list give John's question--what would it take to convince
politicians, which I have rightly amended to, what would it take to
convince politicians' electorates --the attention it deserves? If we
don't, we're more like the talking NASA heads, butterflies.

Jan

-- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
>
> > From: Xenophile
> > Can we talk about space?
>
> Fair deal, but unless you know of a good simple way of getting
your hands on
> a few billion dollars, then sooner or later we'll need to talk
about
> politicians. In America they seem to regard NASA as merely a
rather boring
> way of getting government money and jobs directed towards their
> constituents. They don't think that way about other parts of
government. The
> police and army are there to do a job, not just serve as a
political vehicle
> for moving money around. How can we get politicians to view space
efforts in
> the same light?
>
> In other nations, how can we get them to view space as important
at all?
> Replacing Trident might work as a technology R&D scheme in the UK,
and
> France in a few years time. What about elsewhere?
>
> How can space exploitation and/or settlement be presented as
something which
> helps them win their next election?
>
> John
>
simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine