The kernel of his argument, which in my opinion
amounts to a false accusation, is that people who argue for space
colonisation are wrongly claiming that, if it is carried out, perfect
societies will be created on the pristine soils of other
worlds---something that could not possibly happen.
In fact they assert nothing of the kind. At least
none of the people I know make this claim. It is true that President
Kennedy predicted that the Moon landings would lead to the development
of greatly improved computers, as indeed they did. Indeed, computers and
mobile phones have created a much more productive society, but certainly
not a perfect one.
A perfect society would hardly be agreeable to live
in. Patrick Moore tells the story of how he was visiting Utah with a
television crew.
``Welcome to the Mormon state,'' said a pompous
citizen. ``We are quite different from the rest of America. You'll find
no swearing or drinking or wild women here.''
``Then it's hardly worth coming, is it?'' Patrick
replied. No one in the neighbourhood would speak to him after that.
The truth is that breakthroughs in space exploration
represent just another advance in technology. This, far from creating a
perfect society, merely puts mankind into a more advantageous position.
It is just another step forward in a age-long succession of favourable
steps, starting three million years ago with our descent from the trees,
proceeding to the discovery of fire, the invention of the wheel, the
mastery of the horse, the development of steel and gunpowder,
ocean-going sailing ships, and so forth.
Naturally the people advocating such advances sound
``utopian.'' If they did not adopt an enthusiastic tone, with the
occasional touch of exaggeration, then who would take any notice of
them? As the novelist Anatole France put it:
``Without the utopias of other times, men would still
live in caves, miserable and naked. Out of generous dreams come
beneficial realities. Utopia is the principle of all progress, and the
essay into a better future.'' Or, in the words of Oscar Wilde: ``A map
of the world that does not include Utopia is not even worth glancing
at.''
I would therefore argue that the analysis of Roger
Launius demonstrates a failure of imagination and a misunderstanding of
both of history and human nature.
