It’s dangerous to think humans have a destiny outside Earth

> Heidegger pointed out that the Nazis specifically invested in technology and sought to destroy intellectualism, books, and texts.

Which is a ridiculous argument because it says a lot more about the cultural background of certain parts of Europe at a certain time than the relationship between technology and fascism. It's not like we have had technology for 3 million years to make a good correlation to begin with.

The investments we make into space exploration technology improve technology we use on earth too. It also employs a lot of people in good-paying jobs with benefits. And there is no version of a post-capitalist future that does not involve space travel - we will need more resources and more space as the species grows.

It's also a fraction of a percentage of total spending to invest into space. Even if it was 1% of our total spending, it wouldn't meaningfully move the needle on improving and protecting Earth. Earth will always need to be our home base, but there are virtually no negatives to moving onto the moon and then to Mars and beyond.

The problem with this line of thinking (besides it being an obvious tactic of rehashing without rigor a well trod argument to boost your views on substack... I wish you luck!) is it’s wrong. Governments and populations can and should walk and chew gum at the same time. Trump appointing a competent NASA administrator who just put a competent woman in charge of crewed space flight and who is also deftly bringing on international partners and trying to show progress with the Artemis program so the next administration does not change course and waste resources does not mean we can’t and shouldn’t address climate change or any other problems on earth. Hell the tech we put up in space is critical to the science of climate change.

In any case the ship is going with or without the US government given the resources being poured into commercial space flight and the progress made the last ten years.

> The problem with this line of thinking — and the Trump administration’s ideological and monetary support for NASA exploring the solar system — is that it perpetuates the myth that, through technological developments, humans are destined to leave Earth and find a utopia elsewhere.

I haven't heard anyone make this argument in earnest. What I have heard are arguments to the effect that we _must_ expand past the Earth because it will inevitably become uninhabitable, probably due to human intervention.

Even if we reversed climate change, that still would leave: bio/nuclear terrorism, rogue states, threats from asteroids (let's not forget the Dinosaurs), etc...

Most species on this planet last only a geological blink-of-an-eye before something wipes them out. Why should we think we are so special in that regard?

Space exploration is about survival and advancement, not utopia.

> Indeed, the idea that technological developments will solve all of our problems —eventually allowing us to leave Earth — is instrumental to political mobilization on behalf of the powers that be. It helps to perpetuate the current socio-economic system that is designed for the one percent to stay in power and the working class to stay working.

Sorry to say, but almost EVERYTHING big that happens on this planet helps to perpetuate the current socio-economic system that is designed for the one percent to stay in power and the working class to stay working.

> After all, it’s easier to sell American citizens on space exploration — and the $22.6 billion dollar budget afforded to NASA in 2020 alone — when there is a promise of a future utopia.

What future utopia? They're selling Americans on future American prestige in the world, during an election cycle. You're reading far too much into this.

> American citizens need to decide what they prioritize. Is it space exploration or is it a decent standard of living at home? Is it the moon, Mars, or Earth?

All three. They have the capability, just not the equality.