Politics of space funding

Hetrevillion wrote,

"I don't think there is a way to conveniently have the average U.S.A.
citizen show any concern for the future of 'humanity'. As long as
John Q. Public and wife Jane, with their 1.4 kids and 2.2 pets are
satisfied with their life as is, they don't give a flip for the rest
of the world or country or state or city or neighborhood."

Yes, this is the problem almost as challenging as the technological
problems. I mentioned before, Jared Diamond's book gives some
details about similar economic/environmental situations on earth
where tribes in identical environmental conditions and sometimes in
the same geographical area made different decisions. Tribes started
out as hunter-gatherers. In some areas, due to tweaks in the
environment, the conditions existed that gave rise to a kind of
collective decision to either move to or not move to food production-
-agriculture, animal domestication. But not everybody chose to make
the change.

One would think that the decision would be automatic, a no-brainer
for whatever group of people, but Diamond says two things that give
the discussion bearing on our times: an analysis of living sites
seems to say that hunger-gathers consumed more calories than those
peoples who moved to food production, and also enjoyed more leisure
time. The other thing is some tribes outright rejected food
production even when the local conditions supported it and their own
neighbors practiced it, making it easy to "import" food production,
even entire packages as happened throughout the world. And some
tribes resist it to this day.

They choose their, well, has to be 2.0 children, and their cave.
They evidently reject "working for the future" or working for the
good of mankind. Other tribes chose to make the change, in the
process enjoying less freedom than the hunter-gatherers, but having--
enjoying--specialists who drove the society to further advances.
These people followed a path of LESS for themselves in order that
the whole society would have more--if there was a chance to reason
it out. And if there wasn't a reasoning of it out, what was there?
Surely they must have talked about things--they do to this day.
There are Indian tribes in Mexico that to this day resist changing
their ways of life. Of course, now the government supports them, I
think. They beg a lot in the cities. (It is often the most
vulnerable members of this population, by the way, that ends up in
the states, in the fields, at age fourteen.)

It's really a tempting subject of investigation, given that we seem
to be at a similar juncture. We could stay static, or even contract
("Cutting off our desires" to survive) but enjoy what we enjoy-we
think we can, anyway. And perhaps somehow we could, if we tweaked
our power production somehow, cleaned up a little. I think it is
worthy of discussion, anyway, at times, as a necessary adjunct to
the tech discussion. (If we don't make it to space, can we survive,
is the question being put forward.)

What I keep thinking about is, what were the guys who
moved "forward" thinking? What motivated them? (What did they
understand and when did they understand it? And what do we
understand, and when will we understand it?)

By the way, I myself prefer the word "exploitation"
over "exploration" because I think as humans we have to keep alive
the very important and ancient idea, "I'm allowed to exploit"
however one defines it, with its warts and its glories, because if
that idea is allowed to disappear and human beings
eschew "exploitation" in all of its many manifestations we will HAVE
to go back to being hunter-gathers. Not even hunters! Carrion-
eaters! We exploit the universe. It's like that. We're allowed. God
gave us dominion, as it says in Genesis. We better do it wisely. He
says that, too--wise stewardship. (This idea, dominion, is under
constant attack in the modern media.)

But there are things that government CAN do, and capitalism better
be prepared to purify itself, as well--and, if you will permit me to
say, the social encyclicals of the Church--just google social
encyclicals-- are a very good antidote to the extremes of both
imperialism and socialism, and could be studied with at least as
much care as propulsion systems by those who really want to make
that Trip.

It's possible that the opportunities in space will work the same way
the old frontier did, and if so, that could help. I think it cleaned
it up, opened it up, reduced monopolization. (All we have to do is
just not kill the natives in the process, and there the Church as in
Catholic worked better than the church as in protestant, if one
compares Latin America to North America, just the native population
at some chosen point after the colonialization, minus the deaths due
to infection, which were the same ratio in all areas. These are the
figures we leftists found, in the civil rights movement in the
sixties, comparing slavery among both African and native slaves, in
North and Latin America, and we found that slavery was much more
humane in Latin America, with the right to work for oneself outside
of a defined number of hours for the owner, and the right to buy
one's freedom, plus other rights, the right to marry, for example,
all defined and defended by the Church, or rather by the saints in
the Church.Plus the fact that it was much more sanctioned to kill a
native in Latin America than in the great Indian Wars in the north.
We studied these things as leftists, not as Catholics.)

I could be wrong about the frontier, High or West either, cleaning
things up, though. It's the Han Solo version of economics, I'm
afraid.

I'm thinking that, in our times, reducing people's anxieties about
these fundamentals--by covering, debating, educating-- might reduce
our present social lethargic approach to the future. Turn us on
again, turn us out of our cosy nests. (Unfortunately the mention of
Church makes some people nervous,like they might have to give up
masturbating, again. Which they would, by the way.)

Yours,
Jan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "hetrevillion"
wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "janet_baker76"
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree with John, exploitation is the correct term to use.
> Exploration is also important, but the profit potential (not only
> money, but clean energy, resources and frontier escape release of
> pressure on society will be immensely important in the future
> elections---once politicians and 'citizens' recognize the reality
of
> the need to go 'Up and Out' or the species will go "DOWN AND OUT".
>
> As for the rest of Janet's post about convincing the electorate, I
> don't think there is a way to conveniently have the average U.S.A.
> citizen show any concern for the future of 'humanity'. As long as
John
> Q. Public and wife Jane, with their 1.4 kids and 2.2 pets are
> satisfied with their life as is, they don't give a flip for the
rest
> of the world or country or state or city or neighborhood.
>
> I think a better viewpoint is to allow the pioneers to do their
thing
> and develop space without further government help. NASA has shown
how
> to go up and out. Now it is time for the commercial world to
develop
> the technology to allow US, the 'common' people, to get off this
> dead-end rock and out into the solar system (and, eventually,
beyond)
> and live the life of our nomadic ancestors who were always looking
for
> the 'greener grass' over the next hill. Sure, many will die due to
the
> hazards of the environment. Many died on every expansion of the
human
> race from the cradle of our origin till the conquest of Earth.
People
> die. It's what we do. How we live our lives in-between cradle and
> grave is what is important. I want to be a pioneer, although it is
too
> late for me. Maybe some of the readers of this will be pioneers, or
> their children or grandchildren.
>
> Find an aerospace company that is doing what you want done and
invest
> in it. Buy some stock in that company and vote your conscience in
the
> quarterly or annual meetings. Drive the company to get off Earth
and