A Heritage of Risk

As others, such as Zubrin, have pointed out elsewhere, we are the descendants of those who hazarded the unknown, who pioneered in the wilderness, who dared the risk to reap the reward - or, more often, to let their children reap the reward. By facing risk today, we can likewise hope to provide benefit to our descendants, including the benefit of a willingness to overcome fear. If we will not take risks, the fears that rule us will likely rule our children.

We have a heritage of risk, and profit from it, whether we dare to share in it or not, but by sharing in it, by the continuation of it, we stand to gain even greater profit, for us and for future generations.

Risk and Reward

Modern society is often described as being risk-averse, and although that is in many ways true, there are also significant counter examples. Tens of thousands of Americans die in vehicular accidents each year; much more could certainly be done to curtail such risks, but the society at large considers the risks adequate given the rewards of convenience that the current scheme affords.

The risks involved in colonizing Mars (or other locations in the solar system) are certainly much greater than driving a car, but the rewards, for those who would seek them, would be correspondingly greater, too.

Great men become so by overcoming the risk to get the reward.

Aspiration

It is not appropriate to the modern mind to esteem "great men". The term itself is exclusive and sexist, is it not? Jefferson had slaves, Columbus kicked off a continental genocide. Individuals do not do great things; there are no great individuals.

This, like so much of modern culture, is dehumanizing. If there were not greats in the past, then you can not be great. Merely ok, as we are all ok; not one separated above his fellows, for that would demean his fellows.

None of the great men (or women) were perfect, and the esteem of them, for what they did, does not imply otherwise. To see, though, that one can do something of significance, in a day or in a life, is aspirational. It is humanizing, and uplifting, for people, even for those who will fall far short of their aspirations, to see that they can do that which is important, valuable, notable.

A closed society would have an interest in leveling the playing field, meaning not equal opportunity but equal achievement, because to have a person stand out could be a destabilizing influence. In an open society, where a frontier offers limitless opportunity, there is room for people to look at the greats who came before and to become greats themselves.

Cultural Stability

"The only constant is change."

This axiom seems especially appropriate in regard to modern society, with so many aspects changing more quickly and more radically than ever before in history. Some, even many, might hail this as a sign of cultural success, that the society is not static or stagnant, but rather moving forward toward ever greater progress.

One might argue, however, that cultural stability is an expression of a successful society. An unstable society is inherently limited, and prone to collapse, if it does not evolve out of its instability. For a society to remain largely unchanged over a long time period (say, a century or more) would indicate a system that works.

Days of Discovery

While many observed Columbus Day yesterday, which is traditionally on the 12th, probably far fewer recognized that October 9th is Leif Erikson Day. Simply being the first (though LE might not have even been that) is not necessarily as notable as being the one who opens the door to a permanent presence. The first man on Mars will be important, but not so important as the one who opens the world to inhabitation... perhaps the two firsts will be one and the same.

Geographical Freedom

Different cultures coexisting in one society can lead to a variety of fundamental conflicts, one of which is that the expression of freedom for one group may be the impairment of freedom for another. The government, then, might side with one or the another, but in most cases will probably intervene with a compromise solution that doesn't quite work for either.

This might be fine for many minor points of contention, but when the conflict cuts to the heart of one or both groups, a compromise solution is not a solution. What has often been an option in the past, moving into a frontier so as to be able to live in the manner the group desires, is no longer much of an option. With the opening of the solar system, though, such an opportunity for geographical freedom would again arise.

The Myth of the Golden Age

It is common, if not universal, to hold a view that "things were better back then"... with differences between people as to the "things" and the "then". One may hold this view in regard to one's own past, or to some particular historical period, or to a general, sweeping, undefined past.

This is, of course, nothing new. The term "Golden Age" comes from classical Greece, as certain persons from that society lamented the difficulties of modern life and yearned for a better, simpler, and purer life that (surely) came before.

Of course, the cynic notes, there never was a Golden Age, and the realist chimes in that the esteemed past might not be held up so high if we knew (or remembered) what it was truly like.

The history of civilization is a history of change, with some pushing forward, some pulling backward, others struggling to resist any movement, and many more just along for the ride. All of these groups might be contained in one society, setting their conflicting interests against one another, or, if there is a frontier, these different groups can pursue their divergent goals in a space big enough for all. Life will be hard, in any case, and it will not be a Golden Age, but of the two options, many would much rather see the latter.