Impactful, aspirational stuff.
We can each be doing the same, on a daily basis without going to space, just by bing considerate custodians of the piece of world where we live. If you’re the type of person who picks up a piece of trash, home grows a vegetable, acts with consideration and kindness to a stranger, then you’re already part of that “Giant leap for mankind”.
Big, visible, international success and breakthroughs are triumphs of the human spirit (and I’m all for them), but I’d argue that the more important and impactful actions are those consistently applied by many, evidence of the mindset and values to which we subscribe.
Think of a beach strewn with plastic rubbish. An amazing machine would be able to collect that waste, and it would be hailed a success. An enterprise would invest R&D into it, build it at huge cost, and then charge for lugging it around to perform its function. That same end result is achievable if we there away our own rubbish, or (as an interim) picked up that which others threw away.
With a minor self discipline not only would we reap the benefits of a more beautiful beach, but also not create a monster, driving by profit, to fix “someone else’s problem”. I’m sure you can think of many similar examples.
The world won’t change overnight, but being considerate, and spreading that to others NOW can benefit not only the immediately obvious, but also in not creating yet another opportunity where we (lazily) fund someone else’s capitalist solution.
Businesses start with “what problem am I solving”. It’s the correct way to think. It would be ideal though if what they’re solving are matters bigger than “I’m too lazy to [insert what results in a problem here]”.
Although I don’t believe its our inherent nature, we have in this 20th / 21st century become beings who strive for convenience and entertainment rather than survival. Yes, I’m generalising and there are tons of examples to negate that, but, never before have so many had so much. Again, Im well aware that the gap between the “have lots” and the rest has grown outrageously, but the statement is still correct.
I read an interesting piece which interpreted wealth as the number of calories we have access to per day. it used to be about 400, whereas today (for much of the certainly first world countries) its now over 4000. With many living within this “satisfaction zone”, convenience, entertainment (fun) has become what consumes money given our calorie requirement is satisfied.
So it no longer becomes “working to be able to get my 4000 daily calories”, it becomes working as little to achieve that, or not just not working, but being entertained and having fun despite still being able to get them. That dynamic creates an environment where paying for convenience flourishes.
It’s easy to identify that this increased unequal wealth distribution is a problem, but we need to acknowledge that its because of willing consumers that its taken place. So, in our capitalistic worlds, those unequal barons of industry have become so not because they’ve screwed us, but because they’ve priced something at a point at which we’re prepared to buy en masse, and quite often its for convenience or entertainment. in cases where this is true we have to at least take part of the blame for enabling it.