[flagged]
This describes almost all human activity outside agriculture. (EDIT: slash that—agriculture doesn’t make the cut either.) Shelter, medicine, education, transportation—none of this is biologically necessary by some measure.
It’s difficult to look at history and not see the obvious—practically unchallenged—connection between technological ambition and quality of life. Paradoxically, if you only focus on feeding and clothing your population, you never do.
Of all things, why would agriculture be the one exception from "leisure"? On the other hand why would shelter be considered anything but a biological imperative?
Shelter is essential for survival. Agriculture is the kind of advanced organized activity developed much later than foraging or hunting.
You’re right. I was thinking for purposes of survival, but nomadic tribes disprove this assertion.
> On the other hand why would shelter be considered anything but a biological imperative?
Shelter beyond temporary protection from the elements is not necessary for survival, as exemplified by nomadic tribes.
Frankly I don't see the point of shelter. What, so we're going to live in the inhospitable environment of Europe? What would be the point? We should focus on preserving and maintaining our current home.
Depends on your definition of "better off". According to my definition, which I suspect is most people's, we're better off with modern technology, modern medicine, the Internet, etc. than we would be if we were all savannah hunter-gatherers like our ancestors 12,000 and more years ago. The very fact that you are posting here, in a conversation that wouldn't even exist if we were all savannah hunter-gatherers because the medium and the technology would never have been invented, indicates that you want at least some aspects of all that modern technology. But you can't just pick and choose.
Who is "we"? Evidently a sufficient number of people want to to make private ventures have a reasonable expectation of profit. If you personally don't want to, then just don't get involved. But why should that stop people who do want to from doing it?
> It’s just leisure.
No, it's exploration with the expectation that it will lead to profitable ventures. The same thing that led people to spend months in sailing ships traveling around the world a few centuries ago. Plenty of people back then did not want to participate--but enough people did to eventually lead to the very profitable and wealth-generating system of worldwide trade we have now.
The only real equivalent I can think of was the Arctic/Antarctic exploration. However that was massively cheaper and the environment was much more hospitable and not particularly profitable (and they couldn't send drones etc.). Most prior ventures had very practical goals and motivations and were mostly seeking a direct profit even if it didn't always work out.
> have a reasonable expectation of profit
Mainly through government funding though. The only directly profit generating activity that exists is launching satellites which on itself wouldn't really justify all the investment.
In the very short-term, yes. In the mid-term, there's a lucrative industry of space tourism yet to be built. In the long-term, there are riches beyond our imagination to be exploited from asteroids and other Solar System objects. All of this should be motivating enough for companies, welwala.
(Aside from the primal human need for exploration, which brought your ancestors the where you live now - unless you live in central Africa)
In my opinion, I want to fuck about on the surface of the moon.
I understand that it can be difficult to see that far ahead.
The technological advancements were nice the first time around. But diminishing returns are a thing.
I understand it can be difficult to understand that historic data does not reliably predict the future.