The political tides of a given era do not necessarily equate with the level of general intelligence in a society, and the author (I think) stretches it when he

The political tides of a given era do not necessarily equate with the level of general intelligence in a society, and the author (I think) stretches it when he says that we have done nothing since Apollo because we are a nation of idiots who refuse to give priority to scientific goals. The moon project was given high political priority because of the cold-war impetus to outdo the Soviets. Substantial funds were devoted to the project and the goal itself was specific, symbolic, and achievable (as it turns out, though the underlying effort was obviously an amazing achievement). Once that was achieved, nothing of comparable impetus has arisen in the space program to excite the public imagination in a similar way, and it is the public imagination that sways political decisions, not abstract judgments made in the name of advancing "science." Average people may be largely ignorant of science but they like what it brings into a society even if they don't understand how it comes about. The American infatuation with "progress" for the past couple of centuries has largely been tied to a national pride over scientific achievements and nothing has changed in this area. A century ago, they were proudly boasting of Thomas Edison; today, they boast of Silicon Valley. I would guess that it is not so much an antipathy to science that has caused politicians to pull back on the space program as it is a general loss of focus in that program that has caused the public to look at it with apathy. No public support. No political support. No political support. No "billions in funding." The appallingly low level of scientific knowledge in the general population is real but is likely not (in my judgment at least) the cause of this particular phenomenon. The author does make his point with great vigor, though, and the piece is fun to read.