The problem with this suggestion is that we are no longer in the 1960s. We didn't go to the moon because we would be better off there than in, say, Wyoming . . . it was a space "race", and we had someone very clear and visible who we were racing against . . . the Russians. We had to beat the Russians. It was wholly symbolic and contributed very little to the greater good of mankind.
Presidents have repeatedly tried to pull off the same kind of "call to the nation" since Kennedy, always choosing goals much higher-minded than being able to hit golf balls in 1/6 g. Jimmy Carter, in his "Malaise" speech that likely cost him what chance he had left of a second term, actually called for pursuing an energy policy that would free us from dependence on Middle Eastern oil. But we weren't "racing" anybody to get off the oil, so nobody cared, and it didn't take.
President Bush has tried to make several calls, on of which was to put a man on Mars. But nobody else is anywhere close to putting a man on Mars, so there isn't much enthusiasm in the US of A, either. Until China has Taikonauts en route to Phobos, I doubt anyone in the United States is going to see a compelling need to get worked up over seeing Old Glory planted on Olympic Mons.
And the same principle applies, I think, to alternative fuels. If the Russians had figured out a way to make soy fuels cheaper than oil and were two years away from being able to outpace us in manufacturing and commerce, the whole country would have risen up and found a way to power cars with nothing but Capitalism (yes, the immaterial concept).
And then sold those cars to the Russians. But until we have an antithesis who might get ahead of us in this area, I am pretty sure nobody's going to care.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this suggestion is that we are no longer in the 1960s. We didn't go to the moon because we would be better off there than in, say, Wyoming . . . it was a space "race", and we had someone very clear and visible who we were racing against . . . the Russians. We had to beat the Russians. It was wholly symbolic and contributed very little to the greater good of mankind.
Presidents have repeatedly tried to pull off the same kind of "call to the nation" since Kennedy, always choosing goals much higher-minded than being able to hit golf balls in 1/6 g. Jimmy Carter, in his "Malaise" speech that likely cost him what chance he had left of a second term, actually called for pursuing an energy policy that would free us from dependence on Middle Eastern oil. But we weren't "racing" anybody to get off the oil, so nobody cared, and it didn't take.
President Bush has tried to make several calls, on of which was to put a man on Mars. But nobody else is anywhere close to putting a man on Mars, so there isn't much enthusiasm in the US of A, either. Until China has Taikonauts en route to Phobos, I doubt anyone in the United States is going to see a compelling need to get worked up over seeing Old Glory planted on Olympic Mons.
And the same principle applies, I think, to alternative fuels. If the Russians had figured out a way to make soy fuels cheaper than oil and were two years away from being able to outpace us in manufacturing and commerce, the whole country would have risen up and found a way to power cars with nothing but Capitalism (yes, the immaterial concept).
And then sold those cars to the Russians. But until we have an antithesis who might get ahead of us in this area, I am pretty sure nobody's going to care.