The Europeans who colonized the New World were using conveyances that had existed for millennia.
Maybe future generations will feel like colonization is worth the exorbitant cost in resources. More power to them.
As for “obsession with the short game,” it’s better termed as reality. I pay more than enough in taxes to a corrupt American government, and am not willing to fork over additional sums to some corrupt international agency. I’m 59, I have probably 15-20 years max left on this earth, and have my own bucket list to execute. My preference is to have a country in which to make that happen.
Not really. Not in that form. Ships that could go over the horizon into the deep water and big storms were pretty new, and quite risky. There’s a reason so many ships sunk off the coast of Florida.
It’s not about feel like it, it’s about what’s necessary for survival of the species, and even our own country. Which version of America is more capable of dealing a terrorist threat: single location, or interplanetary?
No, you’re studiously ignoring reality. Reality is that when the extinction level event happens it won’t really matter if our budget is balanced and borders are secure. What will matter is did we provide our own mourners by getting a sustainable population off the planet. Or do we all go together.
Your preferences is to stay mired on earth and volunteer for total destruction because you can’t see beyond your own mortality and our relatively small problems. Again, you’re short sighted and ignoring reality. It’ goes back to that sentence I offered at the beginning:
“Finally in 2120 we got our house in order and solved the [your pet issue here] problem, then the asteroid hitâ€.
Go ahead, fill it in a few times, see how it feels. Yea we sealed the border... then all died. Hooray we balanced the budget... then were wiped out. Huzza we beat the terrorists... and there’s no one alive to notice.
You are quite simply wrong. And wrong in a way that’s detrimental to the survival of the race and the country.