The solution to this is for someone else to offer a more compelling vision of the future that is also practical and achievable.
Take Elon Musk for example. His vision of the future is more compelling than anything I hear any politician of any political party in the USA (or most other nations) putting forward. I find the standard issue right-wing vision of the future repugnant and the standard issue left-wing vision completely impractical and divorced from reality. (Aspects of it are repugnant too, but much less so than the right.)
What other non-billionaire visions of the future does humanity have? Xi Jinping's smile-or-die panopticon? Putin's theocratic mafia state?
The billionaires are leading humanity by default because they're on balance the only class of people offering practical workable visions of the future that are at least incrementally better than the present.
If he wasn't sucking at the US Government's teat for funding for SpaceX, tax breaks for Tesla, and evading income taxes then I might admire the guy, but as it is, he's the same corporate grifter in a new set of clothes.
There wasn’t the political will in Congress to make SLS a success because it’s not a voting issue for most of their constituents. This is the fate of any ambitious tech development unless that technology can be used to incinerate half of the world in nuclear-fueled hellfire (moon race), spy on the American people without a warrant, kill brown people in the third world, or be give secondhand to the police to fight the war on drugs.
However, never underestimate Congress's undying political will to give bucketloads of American taxpayer dollars and money the government borrowed to rich people with no accountability.
SpaceX seems to have quite a bit of accountability; I'm a big fan of how Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo projects were run (fixed costs, especially, which is biting Boeing in the ass right now...), and hope NASA uses it as a baseline for future projects.
A successful SLS would have been a failure. It costs far more per launch and is not reusable.
NASA could have built a reusable space launch system better than the shuttle, but they didn't. That's exactly my point about billionaires leading by default. It took a billionaire because nobody else did it.
Even if that is his vision, it won't work. You can't be king of a frontier for very long unless your rule is very competent, minimal, and low-cost. The tighter your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Everybody likes to imply that Elon is going to make some sort of shit new society in space. Perhaps they'll get as far as trying, but the odds of it working out are questionable on social grounds alone.
In general, people living in hostile environments develop higher levels of trust and social responsibility. When you live closely with people, where everyone's choices impact everyone else, when a single person intentionally screwing things up could doom the entire community, you get societies that are pretty much the polar opposite of the archetypal billionaire libertarian vision.
Elon hasn't talked a lot about the social aspects of a Mars settlement. Maybe he doesn't care and figures that's up to the people who go there and his mission is just to get people there. Maybe he would agree with you and that's the point. Who knows.
I highly doubt he's naive enough to think the social outcome of a Mars settlement would be some standard issue Earthly political outcome or one that would exclusively favor him. If he is that naive he will be disappointed.
Do you have any idea how criminally expensive housing is in SB??? This will provide low-cost accommodations nicer than any Ivy league dorm I've ever seen and enable 4500 people/year (or roughly 15% of Goleta CA) to live on campus. Good luck building that much housing off campus with CA Nimbys...
The easiest way would be to do it like in most of Europe and fund universities properly with tax money so that they do not need to waste half their professors' time chasing grants and depend on wealthy donors to fund basic operations.
What are they doing? Giving money to public educational institutions? The horror! If a donor is as unreasonable as this one seems to be the university should not accept the money. Nothing is being forced on anyone here. Calm down.
You have a way: freedom. You're free to not associate. You can choose alternatives to UCSB, Apple, Facebook, lousy jobs, high tuition, etc. Sure you won't get the benefits those offer, but nobody is compelling participation. That's why Americans (at least some of them) are so fiercely adamant about their rights, to a degree that puzzles many: the right to choose differently, however foolish it may seem to others, is the right to choose and is the right "to protect ourselves against what the rich are doing to the rest of us".
Sorry, that's like saying that the people of Flint, MI were free to move somewhere else when their water was polluted.[1]
No, the university is responsible for providing safe housing for the students, and if they accepted this lunatic's plan, they would be breaching that trust.
When parents and students look for colleges, they assume a certain level of due diligence has been done for them, and they will be leaving their teenager in a minimally safe environment. You can't let people off the hook because of some right-wing idea of "freedom".
[1] In April 2014, during a budget crisis, Flint changed its water source from treated Detroit Water and Sewerage Department water (sourced from Lake Huron and the Detroit River) to the Flint River. Residents complained about the taste, smell, and appearance of the water. Officials failed to apply corrosion inhibitors to the water, which resulted in lead from aging pipes leaching into the water supply, exposing around 100,000 residents to elevated lead levels.
They are. The alternative to “move” is toxic water. My area is developing its own problems, so I’m looking to get out. I certainly wouldn’t send my kids to live in an oppressive uberprison dorm.
