I'm not saying it won't happen eventually, but it won't be profitable until we're measuring cost per pound to orbit in pennies rather than thousands of dollars.
In other words, it won't be profitable until the mass for that machinery and propellant comes from somewhere much cheaper than Earth, say the asteroid you're mining.
"Economic growth" can't be sustained forever. A new social model will have to replace that idea. So sorry.
So what when there are at the least, centuries of growth left? After all, not everyone currently enjoys a developed world lifestyle. That's one avenue for growth. Not every society is fully industrialized. That's another avenue. We don't live indefinitely; we don't have massive space civilizations; we don't have post-scarcity conditions; we don't fully understand the universe; we don't have a host of things which we can put into our grasp eventually.
There's plenty of room for growth and it makes no sense to talk about imaginary "new social models" which are irrelevant to a world in growth for the practical future.
A private entitey gaining ownership over what is currently public could be looked on as theft from the public.
There are surprisingly few things owned in space by the public or anyone else. If some crazy dude with a bunch of robots can keep the rest of humanity from doing anything with the Moon other than look at it, then he effectively owns it even if no one else agrees.
Here's the problem. There's no such thing in the world today as unbridled capitalism except in black markets and a few MMOs like Eve Online.
No, it just means that as education prevails, people are less prone to fall for insane cults.
The anti-vaccination craze? Fad ketosis dieting? Near-worship of media figures like the Kardashians? Climate change skepticism? I'd go on but that's already more than enough to refute your statement.
You would only be correct, if cults had a smaller membership in the past. I'll note that we've had over the past thirty years a sharp drop in both the membership and severity of communism.That directly improves the lives of about a billion and a half people living today.
But, I don't recall the enormous wailing and hand wringing about the USA losing its abilities in space back during the gap in the 70's like there is today.
That's because it was forty years ago. Forty years have passed and we going through the same route of failure again. There are two obvious problems that get ignored here. First, where's the money for payloads on the SLS coming from? NASA has had a nearly constant budget for the last 40 years and SLS consumes a sixth of that budget for little gain.
Second, SLS has terrible economics, particularly low launch frequency and a dependency on the Shuttle supply chain. There's no excuse any more for NASA rolling its own launch vehicle when it can and should be using commercial vehicles. That budget could be buying serious deep space missions now rather than a launch vehicle that will never be well used.
The Government is blamed
I don't see the problem myself. People blame others all the time. Most of the time it is completely inconsequential.
What you seem to be missing is that War is a macro-aggressive, acute failure of society. Microaggression is a stealthy, sinister, chronic failure of society that is far more widespread and far more damaging to the long-term health of humanity than is an acute War that has a beginning and an end.
What you seem to be missing is that macroaggression is a real thing which kills people. Microaggression is in your head.
If you consider that our interpersonal relationships have been on a serious decline since the industrial revolution, the divorce rate is the highest it has ever been, children resort to violence first and diplomacy only when trying to talk themselves out of punishment, I would say we are not, in fact, in a very peaceful time at all.
There's always some bullshit reason out there why things are getting worse. But since we're talking about the children, I've heard that they've been getting worse since ancient times. Pretty soon, they'll be backtalking and uppity. That's certainly just as bad as killing 70 million people in a world war.
Philanthropy, as in the case of Carnegie, is all about ego, power and influence and nothing to do with helping anyone. It is corrupt
No, that is not the meaning of corrupt. First, ego, power, and influence are perfectly valid reasons for charity. You should be happy that there is a society where greed and ambition can lead to charitable acts.
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]