RICHARD FERNANDEZ: The Embarrassment of Success (VIP).
If we want to abolish failure one must perforce abolish success. Then society will move into the sunlit uplands more slowly, but surely at the speed of the slowest ship, a convoy commanded by the right thinking. Success only makes future unfairness inevitable. SpaceX’s technical achievements are unleashing inequity on a cosmic scale. JD Vance openly proclaims, “I believe the destiny of this country is to conquer the stars. Whatever your views of Elon’s politics, this is something that should inspire all of us.” Can Vance hear how evil that sounds? Destiny. Conquer. Could the danger be clearer? SpaceX is extending settler colonialism to the universe, exporting “surfacism” to the new “sacrifice zone.”
Space colonization has been discussed as postcolonial continuation of imperialism and colonialism, calling for decolonization instead of colonization. Critics argue that the present politico-legal regimes and their philosophic grounding, advantage imperialist development of space, that key decisionmakers in space colonization are often wealthy elites affiliated with private corporations, and that space colonization would primarily appeal to their peers rather than ordinary citizens. Furthermore, it is argued that there is a need for inclusiveand democratic participation and implementation of any space exploration, infrastructure or habitation.
Unless the American billionaires are stopped the US will seize or claim the inner solar system before North Korea or Africa even put a man into orbit. Something must be done or success will unleash poverty — or so the argument goes. But then the question arises: why then do new industries arise without the intervention of government? Why doesn’t old wealth dominate forever even with the help of government? Could success be due to something other than ripping the poor off?
As Glenn wrote on Columbus Day, “Musk favors expanding horizons – economically, technologically, and geographically (cosmographically?) as humanity expands through the immense resources of the solar system. This, too, is anathema to the left, since socialism is always about dividing up poverty, never actually about sharing wealth. Churchill called it the equal sharing of misery, but that was actually overly kind – misery in socialist countries is never shared equally. The folks on top always do just fine. You couldn’t easily sell socialism in America when people could set off for the frontier, and you won’t be able to sell it when people can set off for Mars, the Moon, or the asteroid belt. Or even get steadily richer on the product of those who do.”