Earlier quoted context omitted.
Building something like this in a democratic society is probably impossible. The reason is that there would be massive opposition to this and rhetorically powerful claims that the trillions of dollars this would cost in a Western society could be put to better use. Even if, by some Deus ex machina, one administration managed to get this project going, the next to come into power would likely can it. Space is a perfec…
> There's no technical reason we haven't established footholds on Mars and even the Moon Lack of atmosphere, dangerous voyage, radiation, lack of easily available nutrients, dangerous weather, different gravity, likely one way voyages and of course the everpresent lack of any particular economic incentive to do so
There also isn't our massive gravity well. If you have materials (see point 1) it is easier to build large installations. We should be able to build GIGANTIC underground habitats in the moon.
There was also the powers-of-ten energy use as we climb Kardashev levels. That only happens with space settlement.
The other economic fact is that we have too many people for the Earth to sustain already AT THE CONSUMPTION THEY WANT. Sure we can impose a resource restriction by fiat (communism/authoritarian) or availability/poverty (capitalism), take your pick.
Space will come more easily with cybernetics. In a hundred years humans may be very very very different. But footholds are worthwhile.
But ultimately your comment harkens to the lack of vision of humanity, mostly I view it as a sign of increased control by the leisure elite over the world. They control the money and politics, and all they want are status and enjoyment, and the rest of the world to support them.
We have a thin margin for species survival right now. It's kind of like how when the tipping point for global warming in the 1990s was happening, everyone in America bought SUVs.
Sad.
