I’ve given up on bothering with the Elhafnawy piece any more. As Jim Bennett notes:
Why would anybody take Elhafnawy seriously? His representation of both the market-oriented space side of the argument and what he defines as “conservatives” are wildly atypical of either community.
It particularly strains credulity that he would represent Nicholson Baker, a whackadoodle pacifist with serious perception-of-reality problems, as any kind of “conservative.” There’s the definition of conservative that’s been in use in the English-speaking world for the past century or so, which is to say, preserving the values that support a constitutional representative political system with a market economy, and then there’s Elhafnawy’s definition. Elhafnawy should just invent a word, maybe (typing at random, here) “dhziuueybdcnma” or ” uaygsrabsjdbue” to represent whatever he is using the word “conservative’ to describe, and let the rest of us use the words of the English language as they are generally understood.
Not only “wildly atypical,” but completely unsubstantiated. If this were an academic paper, given its anecdotal quality (except it only has one actual anecdote, with an unnamed source), it would be tossed out. One has the feeling that he wanted to do a Diane Fosse thing, a sort of “spacers in the mist,” but couldn’t be bothered to actually document his observations. At least Fosse and Jane Goodall named names.
But for the two or three people who are on the edge of their seats, here’s my thesis.
It’s genetic.
OK, not quite that simple, but it’s true. I was born to think space is important. Now I don’t mean that it’s genetic in the sense that my whole family, or even any of my ancestors share my views, and passed them on to me. They didn’t and don’t. If they did and do, that would in fact be more of an argument that it’s environmental (we were all brought up to believe this) but we weren’t. I wasn’t. I was born this way, as surely as I was born an extreme heterosexual. I know other spacers who are the same way — no one else in their family is into space, no one taught or told them they should be, and yet they are.
Thus, it’s some weird recessive, or a mutation.
Which makes sense, given that there aren’t very many of us. There aren’t very many explorers in general. If everyone was out exploring all the time, nothing else societally useful would get done.
This is my explanation for “progressives” (such as Ferris Valyn or Bill White) who betray their ideology by supporting human expansion into space. š
Now, having said that, there is a political component, and a reason why there are an inordinate number of libertarians in the space movement (and space enthusiasts in the libertarian movement, with a significant overlap). I discussed it years ago, back in the early days of this weblog (no need to follow the link — I’m reposting in entirety):
As a follow up to today’s rant over our “allies” in Europe, over at USS Clueless, Steven den Beste has an excellent disquisition on the fundamental differences between Europe and the U.S. They don’t, and cannot, understand that the U.S. exists and thrives because it is the UnEurope, that it was built by people who left Europe (and other places) because they wanted freedom.
I say this not to offer simply a pale imitation of Steven’s disquisition (which is the best I could do, at least tonight), but to explain why I spend so much time talking about space policy here. It’s not (just) because I’m a space nut, or because I used to do it for a living, and so have some knowledge to disseminate. It’s because it’s important to me, and it should be important to everyone who is concerned about dynamism and liberty.
And the reason that it’s important is because there may be a time in the future, perhaps not even the distant future, when the U.S. will no longer be a haven for those who seek sanctuary from oppressive government. The trends over the past several decades are not always encouraging, and as at least a social insurance policy, we may need a new frontier into which freedom can expand.
Half a millenium ago, Europe discovered a New World. Unfortunately for its inhabitants (who had discovered it previously), the Europeans had superior technology and social structures that allowed them to conquer it.
Now, in the last couple hundred years, we have discovered how vast our universe is, and in the last couple decades, we have discovered how rich in resources it is, given will and technology. As did the eastern seaboard of the present U.S. in the late eighteenth century, it offers mankind a fertile petri dish for new societal arrangements and experiments, and ultimately, an isolated frontier from which we will be able to escape from possible future terrestrial disasters, whether of natural or human origin.
If, as many unfortunately in this country seem to wish, freedom is constricted in the U.S., the last earthly abode of true libertarian principles, it may offer an ultimate safety valve for those of us who wish to continue the dream of the founders of this nation, sans slavery or native Americans–we can found it without the flawed circumstances of 1787.
That is why space, and particularly free-enterprise space, is important.
And current events are not very encouraging with regard to the direction of the country. A significant number of people (though not, I think, despite the recent election results, a majority) want to Europeanize us. If it happens, there’s nowhere to go but up.
[Update early afternoon]
(“Progressive”) Ferris Valyn is soliciting ideas for a(nother) Netroots Nation discussion on space over at Kos (he really should get his own site). I find the “more progressive than thou” food fight in comments pretty amusing.
[Friday afternoon update]
I have a follow-on post here for anyone interested.