Marcus -
I can't disagree with your points about Musk's *effectiveness* and those
(stodgy or incompetent or narrowly ambitious) he has eclipsed over and
over again in a couple of decades (or less), any more than I can his
(apparent) *intentions*. Tony Stark is a fun fictional character for
technophiles (including me) and I can see why some want to overlay that
onto the Elon... but for all my fascination with fictions and stories,
I don't mistake the Marvel Universe for the one I actually live in...
It is patently NOT my place to tell Musk what to do (beyond any
financial stake I might hold in his company(ies) as a stakeholder),
though it IS my place to join Citizens of the (community, county, shire,
state, nation-state, earth) to discuss and consider what could/should be
treated as "the commons" and how therefore we manage them (or more
relevantly, how we decide how to shape the landscape of forces that
effectively manage/regulate/define them)... emergent, collective
phenomena ultimately dominate, no matter what the myriad stripes of
linear conspiracy theorists may try to demonstrate.
For my purposes, Musk is a force of nature, a Titan in our modern
pantheon of "influencers" with a megaphone/lever ($200B + beaucoup media
exposure) as large as any we've seen in a long time. Bezos' influence
seems anemic next to his, yet it also is not trivial, and Zuckerberg
seems also the thinnest of gruel, yet they (and many others less
singular or obvious) are the pivots or fulcrums around which our future
is being levered into a new shape. The stories they tell or believe in
is in many ways the destiny which is manifesting through the "power" we
apply to said levers.. our $$, Tweets/Posts, votes, etc are directed
by/through those levers...
I thought that the DLU tech prophet-billionaire was an interesting
mashup of Musk/Bezos/Zuck but with the (more subtle?) reach of Google
and perhaps the dreamy/breathy spirituality of Marianne Williamson. It
was a powerful caricature, though I can't see much I can do with it,
except unplug Alexa/SIRI/HeyGoogle with my kneejerk, re-install TOR, and
#DEFINE Google to be replaced with DuckDuckGo in all instances.
I already buy most of my books through a local Indie and *try* to check
my local Hardwares (still chain affiliates, if not big-box) for the
things I'm tempted to order-in via Amazon (after all they do organize my
purchases for repeat buys, easy returns, significantly useful reviews,
offer one-click purchases, batching orders into single-day deliveries,
etc.). I even try to swing by the espanola ReStore and a couple of
thrift stores on the off chance I don't need to buy something brand-new,
depleting whatever supply chain everyone else might be clamoring about.
If I ever buy a Tesla it will probably be heavily damaged and it will be
to move the power-train to my '49 dumptruck, though my Gen1, Year0
GM-Volt is a more likely candidate. I won't sign up for Starlink until
they remove their clause requiring me to thereby endorse the
privatization of Mars to "first comers"... SpaceX is likely to
become/spawn the equivalent of the Hudson Bay or East India Co of the
18/19C on the Moon and Mars, no matter what I think/say/do... but I
cringe at the thought of openly endorsing a new "land rush"...
I suppose that thinking that any of this matters to anyone but me is
typical hippy/yuppy-elitist western hubris...
- Steve
On 1/28/22 10:05 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I can sort of see why Musk is annoying to scientists because he tends
to use ideas and technology that already exist.
So, what is he really adding? Neuralink is in this category. That
company is making the technology work at a larger scale and at lower
power and making the surgery repeatable. The company (not him) is
making it practical and approaching it like a product. Some
scientists are prone to thinking that engineering is a not a thing or
that a product mindset is just superficial. Or even that money
doesn't matter.
I'm less enamored with Musk's futurism than I am appalled at tunnel
vision, overspecialization, and risk aversion of so many others. The
annoyance people have at Musk can only be because they must
acknowledge his influence. And seeing that influence they conclude
he is somehow responsible for the world in the way that, say, Joe
Biden is responsible for the world. Or as Feynman put it, “You have
no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to
accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be.
It's their mistake, not my failing.” What would be the point of
being a billionaire if you couldn't at least be the dork you want to be?
Before Space X had customers and a track record, there were all the
NASA old fogies saying he'd be killing people and he could not
possibly do it. Am I glad to see them so wrong? Yes. It is not
because he is the best or some Tony Stark. It is because they are
the worst.
Marcus
...
On 1/27/22 10:01 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
< Musk is trying to kick our cans from fossil fuel
extraction/combustion/spills to Lithium (and heavy metals)
extraction/discarding as well as the can of an out of-balance
biosphere on earth to terraforming Mars (with care and thoughtful
intention and no unexpected side-effects?). >
https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk#prize-activity
<https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk#prize-activity>
yes to electrolizing water into hydrogen (and even creating ammonia as
a more easily stored/transported/cracked "carrier" for hydrogen, up to
ammonia fuel cells, etc.) technically very likely and "doable" with
a somewhat limited *known* downside. Though the fossil fuel and
battery industries have a long enough list... but clearly biased. We
neo-luddites have long lists as well, with similar caveats. I was
raised by Calvinists so I recognize in myself when I am generally just
being negative about anything that might be "fun", but that doesn't
stop me from being skeptical anyway. I am also of the "if it feels
good, do it" generation... extreme Hedonism and Calvinism only
polarize an otherwise complex and rich space. TANSTAAFL in my
(post-Libertarian) vocabulary is "there aint no such thing as a free
lunch, but that doesn't mean you can't eat someone else's when they
aren't looking".
And yes to Musk being a puzzling and mixed hero/villain. I don't
doubt his *intentions*, I think they are (by his values and view of
the stakes at hand) righteous. That doesn't preclude him being an
egomaniac with an exponentially growing clout/sense ratio. I can't
see any of his earth-focused tech as anything but a (very well
crafted) double-pronged strategy... gathering the economic leverage
of doing "useful" things on the earth (electrifying and solarizing)...
whilst developing technology useful for colonizing/terraforming
mars. CO2 harvesting is an obvious one, as is tunneling and broad
electrification (are his residential heat-pumps on the market
yet?)... perfect for taking to Mars.
I believe that GeoEngineering is inevitable, given who we are (Homo
Faber) but I also believe our future exercises in this realm will
"rhyme" with all of our previous engineering "miracles". Maybe we
*can* rhyme our way out of the corner we rhymed ourselves into... but
I fear that most if not all of our R&D is biased toward short-term and
narrow goals (Glen's rant about "values" and corruption), and defined
by confirmation biases...
I'm probably just barking at the church choir here...
...
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
