Deep (Space) Thoughts
Col. Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon is advocating for it and so is Stephen W. Hawking, renowned physicist and theorist. Heck, even G. W. Bush used it to try and distract us from his disastrous presidency. So what is so important about colonizing other planets? What if it meant the survival of the species? This NY Times article notes an up-tick in the level of discussion around the issue.
There are two types of races that have benefited the economy through increased education and increased production. The first is the race to win a war of attrition (See WWI and WWII). The second is a race toward a technological feat (see Lunar exploration and the Cold War (nuclear domination)). If you're looking for the one with the least loss of life and the greatest technological advances, the path toward technological feats makes the most sense. Of course, it's much easier to find an enemy for war. Propaganda and "terrorist" attacks make that an easy sell. Putting permanent human settlements on the Moon, Mars, and the astroid belt, so generations many years (possibly 1000s) into the future will have a chance, is a tougher sell.
What would you do to get a national or global buy in to this vision? Or do you think it would be easier to solve the problems on earth and work to prevent global catastophes on a humanity-killer scale? I guess the third option is that you think we're so close to extinction right now we'd be better off working for Rapture (in heaven or on earth as your beliefs lead you).
