One of my favorite quotes comes from a Colombian philosopher (they do exist; and I told you I’m Hispanic, so I would know), Nicolás Gómez Dávila: “You never know what you stand for, until your enemy tells you.”
Let’s listen to the enemy: they’re worried about social, racial and environmental issues, as I discussed in part two of this essay; they were never enthusiastic about space exploration to start with; and they want the money we now spend on rockets and probes to finance their pet projects and their own client networks.
Who are these people?
They say they’re progressive, so we’ll go with their own definition of themselves. Personally, I (a person raised in an Atheist, Marxist household and tradition, like I said earlier) don’t think they’re very much in favor of progress, so I would object to the label. But this would only complicate the discussion, and wouldn’t help us clarify the issues.
In the West, we have Progressives who are in favor of segregation (in censuses, schools, college dormitories) and against basic Marxist notions of class solidarity and protection of the lower classes (whom they want to overwhelm by importing cheaper maids, gardeners and laborers from third-world countries, the world’s most anti-Marxist notion). In the 2020 election, they were all supportive of Joe Biden, the most rightist Democratic candidate since at least Kennedy, a man in favor of expanding the American empire and fully in bed with Wall Street and ALL of the country’s largest corporations, which were hugely supportive of him in turn.
This is “the Left,” hijacked by Silicon Valley, Davos and the billionaire class. The people who change dictionaries to redefine the meaning of everyday expressions in real time, only to smear their enemies, and the very next day set up a social media blockade of news that are just not convenient for their candidate. It’s what what we have, and we must play with.
Among “the Left’s” pet concerns, the most worrisome for “space expansionists” like ourselves is the environmental issue. Green worries are highly respectable when they make sense, and the protection of the Earth’s environment is a benefit to us all, as it’s been made clear in recent centuries. But there’s such a thing as too much when it comes to environmentalism, same as in everything (I love water; it doesn’t mean I drink two tons of it per day).
Outer-space environmentalism is still pretty fringe, and I may sound a bit over the top when I say this is a danger, but you should be very worried. This summer, the highly prestigious The Economist magazine, the jet-set’s preferred weekly and pretty much the official Davos publication, published a long story about the need to protect Mars’ environment from dirty humans.
Same as the book I discussed in part two, this is yet another warning shot, but it may be even more dangerous. I know what I’m talking about: I spent 15 years working for prestige media (The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News) meeting presidents, CEOs and ministers. If they and their aides read anything, it’s The Economist.
(Read the rest here.)