July 1st 1492: It's high time that humanity moved past the notion that sending meatbags onto the oceans is a good idea. Pampering to fans of stories about shorter routes to Asia has squandered a great many dubloons pursuing the 'meatbags on the waves' chimera and all we have to show for it is a severe case of scurvy and a bunch of rotten timber. We already know how to get to Asia overland, why on earth would we bother finding a longer, more dangerous and probably slower route around the other side. Besides, everybody knows the Earth is flat.
Some grandiose ideas are fun but they get you nowhere and leave you worse off as they represent a gigantic mis-allocation of capital.
Relying on analogies to guide one's thinking is so common and so wrong, I guess there must be some Latin phrase to describe it. Plus, as I am sure you are aware, the attempted analogy is broken on more points than I care to enumerate.
It's a friendly way of telling you that your position is bull-shit. Not everything we as humanity can do should be looked at through the lens of immediate utility. If that point passed you by then apologies I'll try to make more watertight analogies in the future.
The ability to set up colonies in space has very little to do with star trek fandom (I can't stand it so no 'star trek' fan here). It is a way to expand our envelope, to reduce our viewpoint of Earth as a special place in the universe (it's only special to us right now) and it will, in the longer term yield dividends in ways that we probably can not even think of today, just like Columbus probably had no idea of the magnitude of the future consequences of his voyage.
If every bit of research or every human activity to date would be viewed with the eye towards immediate economic sense then we'd still be hunter gatherers living in Africa, all of us.
Discovery, curiosity and a drive to expand our envelopes both in a physical sense and in a mental sense are valuable too, even if they don't show up next week on some balance sheet of humanity, Inc.
Look, I might not agree with op, but there's a been a slight development in remote sensing equipment since the late 1400s. What robot equipment would you propose the Queen of Spain omission to explore the vast seas?
Not to mention the fact that if there'd been an interest in following modern procedures (that obviously didn't exist at the time), perhaps genocide by disease might have been avoided.
(Even if one must be cynical, let us be fully cynical, not conveniently partially cynical: Historically speaking there was little compunction about simply killing people. Distributing infected blankets is an awfully roundabout and even dangerous-to-the-distributors way of doing something there was a much simpler way to do. I'd say "imagine the way we think of bird flu today" but back then the putative blanket infectors would be even more terrified of smallpox than that.)
I don't see a way accidental-genocide-by-disease could have been avoided. It only takes one sneeze to set off a powderkeg tens of thousands of years in the making. It was unfortunately structurally inevitable. (Inconceivably, beyond words "unfortunate", but still, inevitable.) It's hard to call it deliberate when I would frankly question our ability today to prevent it; very similarly, witness the number of invasive species that have been put into ecosystems even when we have known better and tried to avoid it. It just takes one action at the right place and the right time, and boom, exponential biological explosion.
it will, in the longer term yield dividends in ways that we probably can not even think of today
Like what? Trade routes on earth have predictable results - if they found a place to trade or a route to somewhere already existing, that's only to be expected.
There's nothing to trade with in space; there's no way we're having a colony on Mars making plastic trinkets and rocketing them back to Earth for sale, or buying Coca Cola rocketed from Earth.
I grant that you can't think of "dividends which we can't think of today", but what categories are you even speculating about? What even might there be?
We live in a big universe that's greatly unexplored both at the macro- and the micro- level, both in the physical and the spiritual realms (since you allude to less material motives in your reply). Anything we do (even large-scale, government-sponsored meditation) has the potential to "yield dividents in ways we probably can not even think of today". That's why you need economic calculation (and a firm grounding) to quantify that potential and decide which of the infinite projects that individuals, governments, or humanity can undertake makes the more sense. Colombus voyage actually made perfect sense from that perspective as it was all about economic calculation.
You seem to be stuck on economy so I'll limit to that.
The Potential of successful colonization of another planet is a total unknown, just like the potential of colonizing another continent is a total unknown. At least we know the other planet exist, whereas America was a bit of a surprise for Columbus.
Letting economic calculations guide you in the day-to-day running of a business is fine. But we as humanity can afford a little bit of money set aside for things that have no immediate value. Art and culture are amongst our most valuable possessions, but their value seems to be appreciating with time relative to the time when they were created. Much of our scientific knowledge had no immediate value at the time of discovery.
Columbus voyage may have made 'perfect sense' from an economic perspective in hindsight because it worked, but there was no guarantee that it would and plenty of people were arguing this was a waste of resources at the time.
I'm just as proud or more so of what humanity has achieved when economic gain wasn't the immediate focus as I am of the things we've achieved when economic gain was at the forefront of our thoughts guiding us to make our decisions. There is room for both of those.
"That's why you need economic calculation (and a firm grounding) to quantify that potential and decide which of the infinite projects that individuals, governments, or humanity can undertake makes the more sense."
Well, my experience of large scale EU funding programmes was that all the efforts to predict the economic yield of research projects was, at best, complete nonsense.
After all, who thought that by funding a nuclear research organisation (CERN) we'd get something like the Web? Has anyone got an economic model that could have predicted that?
Some grandiose ideas are fun but they get you nowhere and leave you worse off as they represent a gigantic mis-allocation of capital.