I don't think there has ever been such a thing as an ideal state. Even if I have the idea that in pre-civilised times, i.e. in the times of nomads and hunter-gatherers, there may have been the best of times for human beings, that doesn't help me very much today to talk about freedom with my contemporaries if what they want is security or prosperity (I just have realized this, something I did realize in times but then always forget about this very important point).

If I take your lines about a glorious space age future, I don't see very much difference from the speeches of those who - to use your words - have institutionalised their power. So, in thinking about your use of words, I better should have said instead of "I do not comprehend your fascination", "I do not comprehend your reasoning", for I find, at the same time, contradictions, which I highly welcome.

To build empires, it has always taken the great visions set in symbols turned to stone, the architecture of which stood and stands for the magnificence of such human, seemingly outgrowing, abilities. Although it must strike the seeing eye that the skyscrapers are imposing, I suspect that living in one is the opposite of grandiose.
As wonderful as space looks from the earthling's perspective, his journey in a ship he built, cut off from the vast dimensions of planet Earth, into the smallness of its construction, becomes narrow if you lack in being an adventurer. To me, this mindset makes about as much sense as wanting to build a small biosphere within a large biosphere (a project I'm sure you've heard of) if the reason is security or prosperity.

While my view on this matter is a conservative one in its true sense, I can understand the spirit of adventure that I also associate with it. If I start from the female-preserving principle, because the female gives birth to children and wants them to grow up in a secure future, I can also understand and even welcome the male principle. To simplify, there is the down to earth and the up in the sky notion.

The most important component of adventure is uncertainty.

Therefore, I would argue that space travel is desirable not because "inconceivable wealth for their felicity in perpetuity" but because the outcome is uncertain. Space travel may be undertaken by people who do not know where it will take them and who live their lives like a play rather than an overly serious business. It's them who build the paths for others with lesser ideals.

Uncertainty is a great friend, but is wrongly considered an enemy.

When I send my son off on a scouting trip, it is not so that he will return safely (which of course I want!), but so that he will learn to cope with uncertainty.
Not knowing exactly what to expect on a journey is the reason why you set out in the first place. The holy grail or treasure - untold fortunes - is, in my eyes, merely a lesser advertisement than what constitutes the real adventurer: possibly dying (and, attenuated, getting hurt, coming close to drowning, almost falling off a cliff or being attacked by someone).

So the first skyscrapers were built by adventurers, not by men who imagined themselves living in such abominations, but balancing from their tops on a steel beam and having breakfast there with a magnificent view of the sunrise. They may have been slaves at the foot of the building, but on the higher floors they had the adventure of a lifetime, whenever they could have fallen off at any time.

In this sense, I welcome those - you included - who strive for something other than being safe.

My conviction, on the other hand, that there will never be an end to conflict as long as man lives, is unwavering and I do not believe for a second that there will ever be prosperity for all, because never everyone is equally presently prosperous. It is an impossibility and the proclamation or advertisement is simply a lie to oneself in my eyes.

Therefore, my respect for men (and women) is rather low, so they never get out of their offices (if not physically, then mentally) where the thrill of defeating an opponent or inspiring another to do business is second hand.

This is why I had such a fight with a former neighbour who curtailed, limited and belittled her son in a way unworthy of a mother and woman. The father, a more than feeble figure, not only failed to stop her from acting out her hideous need for security on the child they have together, but also supported it. She cannot help but despise him. Women, if left to their own devices, can become the worst of characters when they trample on the honour and adventurousness of sons and husbands. In order not to exaggerate either one or the other, they need each other as a balancing force.

The first free man is the child which is being set free from his mothers worries and his fathers ideas of success. Nobody would say to his son "Now, get on your journey and die", of course not. One says "Good luck on your journey and return home safe". But if the son gets back home and tells about events within which he almost died, all will listen with delight and have a feast.

That is also the reason why the father forgives his son who disobeyed and left the tribe and favored him instead of the other son who stayed and fulfilled his duties. But this biblical story also tells us that we are all different and inasmuch we need sons who leave, we also need those who stay. This is existing in the ever lasting tension between what is to be preserved and what is to be abandoned. There is no solution but only living artistically with these contradictions.

To return to the topic, perhaps it is that in order to trick the power-hungry, you get their admiration. You can only do so as a man, not as a group.