3 ms·

This seemed a bit uncalled for: "Here's Elon Musk. In a television interview this week, Musk said: "I'm trying to do useful things." Then he outlined his plan

by hliyan 11y ago

This seemed a bit uncalled for: "Here's Elon Musk. In a television interview this week, Musk said: "I'm trying to do useful things." Then he outlined his plan to detonate nuclear weapons on Mars. These people are the face of our industry." Italics mine.

buffoon 11y ago
I agree with him. Billionaires are prescriptive. "I will solve this problem". It doesn't hurt to ask what problems need solving. Ultimately this just isn't altruism but it is promoted as whilst people are in deep shit all around him. I'm not really sure what my point is but I suspect it is a new form of hypocrisy.
- hliyan 11y ago
  There's truth in that, but in Musk's case, he's already done a great deal for the world with Tesla and SpaceX. If Mars is what he wants to do with the rest of his money, that is his choice. Certainly better than what certain other billionaires are doing with theirs.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Huh? What have SpaceX and Tesla done "for the world"? Provide rich people with electric sports cars?
    - dagw 11y ago
      Tesla has shown that electric cars can be both viable and cool. Even if if Tesla itself remains a niche car, Tesla should get the credit if/when in the future electric cars become the norm. In addition Tesla is betting big on making better batteries. If they can pull that off then that will end up being their true legacy with the whole car thing becoming a neat historical footnote. As for SpaceX they'll go down in history as pioneers of commercial space flight and wherever future commercial companies decide to take us, they'll all point back at SpaceX as the company that first showed that it could be done.
      - gozo 11y ago
        Well. If SpaceX succeeds in its goal of making putting things in space significantly cheaper, they could enable a lot of nasty things like weapons in space, global surveillance systems, increased use of military drones etc.
        dagw 11y ago
        The reason the military is or isn't putting weapons in space has nothing to do with launch costs.
        gozo 11y ago
        I guess that your opinion. The point is when you change the variables you change the outcome and it won't magically be for the better, especially since there's little precedence. It's pointless to loose karma over this on HN though when I can and regularly do talk about it with actual aerospace engineers.
        dagw 11y ago
        I will certainly concede that there are scenarios where it works out to be for the worse. However I don't believe that any of those scenarios involve military weapon platforms. I am however more than happy to hear arguments as to why I am wrong.
        Retra 11y ago
        You could say that about any technology. "The invention of microwave technology will just lead to microwave weapons, Oh No!"
        coldtea 11y ago
        That doesn't make it wrong. If those "microwave weapons" end up enabling the killing of millions of people (like e.g. nuclear weapons can wipe out the whole earth), then those left will be right to say: "Hmm, maybe we were better off without microwave technology after all. In fact, just because we can make something, probably doesn't mean that we should make it".
    - idlewords 11y ago
      SpaceX did fire a cheese into space. http://www.space.com/10459-wheel-cheese-launched-space-private-spacecraft.html http://www.space.com/10459-wheel-cheese-launched-space-priva...
  - Draiken 11y ago
    As much as I'd love to own a Tesla car and it does show a lot of innovation in the right direction, it's still a luxury sports car that only few very rich people can own. If he built an electric car for the masses, that would be a big deal for the world. Of course he's pushing inovation, but he still hasn't done "a great deal for the world". Maybe he caused some changes in the US, I'm not in a position to see that, but saying he changed the world is quite a stretch
    - vlucas 11y ago
      > If he built an electric car for the masses, that would be a big deal for the world. This is exactly Tesla's goal with the Model 3, targeted at $35,000. I don't think you understand the amount of time and money required to reach mass production scale of affordable vehicles. Tesla was very wise to start with high-margin sports and luxury cars, because it gives them the capital needed to continue re-investing in production capacity and battery technology for more affordable cars in the future. Tesla is playing a long game, and so far it's working. The popularity of Tesla alone has driven other auto makers to step up their electric car game, which is indeed a "great deal for the world" to help get us all off combustion engines.
      - Draiken 11y ago
        Interesting, was not aware of that project. Agreed that maybe the luxury car is the right way to start his attempt with a healthy cash flow. In fact, I'm a big fan of people like him, who have the money and instead of just playing the markets to get more of it, he uses it to build something that can eventually help us. The main reason for my comment was that some people idolize him like he has cured cancer or erradicated world hunger. These people should to take a step back :)
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      You could say the same thing about cellular telephones, which once upon a time were also luxury items that only very rich people could own. If they hadn't gone through the "here's a fancy thing for the rich" phase they never would have reached the "here's an affordable thing for everyone" phase.
- gadders 11y ago
  It's his money, not ours or the governments. If he wants to wipe his arse on his cash and set it on fire it's none of our business.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > Billionaires are prescriptive. "I will solve this problem". That's good, and that's sort of the point of getting money, is it not? We should encourage those who are rich to pursue goals beneficial to everyone. They have the ability to achieve things no "democratic" groups (and countries) can, because the latter are plagued with coordination problems.
d_theorist 11y ago
Yes, I thought that both this line, and the Peter Thiel reference about giving women the vote, were intellectually dishonest. "Then he outlined his plan to detonate nuclear weapons on Mars." This deliberately takes the quote out of context to make it seem silly. Thiel wasn't "complaining" about the extension of the franchise. He was simply making the historical observation that women are a hard constituency for libertarians to convince.
arethuza 11y ago
"Then he outlined his plan to detonate nuclear weapons on Mars." This isn't a new idea - Kim Stanley Robinson mentions nukes being used to melt underground polar ice in his Mars trilogy. After all, we'd all think using nukes to move an asteroid on a collision course with Earth was a good idea - so its not like a "harmless" use of a nuke is impossible.
iyn 11y ago
I think this is the source of Musk's "claim": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV6hP9wpMW8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV6hP9wpMW8 Musk just said that there are 2 options how to warm up Mars: the fast way and the slow way, Colbert asked about the fast way so Musk mentioned Thermonuclear weapons. IMO the quote in the presentation is not honest.
firebones 11y ago
I don't think it was uncalled for. It takes into account that the target reader/listener is up on current events (the Musk quote from Colbert) and is in on the joke that it is an exaggeration, but one that parodies itself. In the long run, writers (and presenters) must take the risk and assume that their audience is intelligent and informed, lest we be left with lowest common denominator dreck.

by hliyan 11y ago

buffoon 11y ago

I agree with him. Billionaires are prescriptive. "I will solve this problem". It doesn't hurt to ask what problems need solving. Ultimately this just isn't altruism but it is promoted as whilst people are in deep shit all around him. I'm not really sure what my point is but I suspect it is a new form of hypocrisy.

hliyan 11y ago
There's truth in that, but in Musk's case, he's already done a great deal for the world with Tesla and SpaceX. If Mars is what he wants to do with the rest of his money, that is his choice. Certainly better than what certain other billionaires are doing with theirs.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Huh? What have SpaceX and Tesla done "for the world"? Provide rich people with electric sports cars?
  - dagw 11y ago
    Tesla has shown that electric cars can be both viable and cool. Even if if Tesla itself remains a niche car, Tesla should get the credit if/when in the future electric cars become the norm. In addition Tesla is betting big on making better batteries. If they can pull that off then that will end up being their true legacy with the whole car thing becoming a neat historical footnote. As for SpaceX they'll go down in history as pioneers of commercial space flight and wherever future commercial companies decide to take us, they'll all point back at SpaceX as the company that first showed that it could be done.
    - gozo 11y ago
      Well. If SpaceX succeeds in its goal of making putting things in space significantly cheaper, they could enable a lot of nasty things like weapons in space, global surveillance systems, increased use of military drones etc.
      - dagw 11y ago
        The reason the military is or isn't putting weapons in space has nothing to do with launch costs.
        gozo 11y ago
        I guess that your opinion. The point is when you change the variables you change the outcome and it won't magically be for the better, especially since there's little precedence. It's pointless to loose karma over this on HN though when I can and regularly do talk about it with actual aerospace engineers.
        dagw 11y ago
        I will certainly concede that there are scenarios where it works out to be for the worse. However I don't believe that any of those scenarios involve military weapon platforms. I am however more than happy to hear arguments as to why I am wrong.
        Retra 11y ago
        You could say that about any technology. "The invention of microwave technology will just lead to microwave weapons, Oh No!"
        coldtea 11y ago
        That doesn't make it wrong. If those "microwave weapons" end up enabling the killing of millions of people (like e.g. nuclear weapons can wipe out the whole earth), then those left will be right to say: "Hmm, maybe we were better off without microwave technology after all. In fact, just because we can make something, probably doesn't mean that we should make it".
  - idlewords 11y ago
    SpaceX did fire a cheese into space. http://www.space.com/10459-wheel-cheese-launched-space-private-spacecraft.html http://www.space.com/10459-wheel-cheese-launched-space-priva...
- Draiken 11y ago
  As much as I'd love to own a Tesla car and it does show a lot of innovation in the right direction, it's still a luxury sports car that only few very rich people can own. If he built an electric car for the masses, that would be a big deal for the world. Of course he's pushing inovation, but he still hasn't done "a great deal for the world". Maybe he caused some changes in the US, I'm not in a position to see that, but saying he changed the world is quite a stretch
  - vlucas 11y ago
    > If he built an electric car for the masses, that would be a big deal for the world. This is exactly Tesla's goal with the Model 3, targeted at $35,000. I don't think you understand the amount of time and money required to reach mass production scale of affordable vehicles. Tesla was very wise to start with high-margin sports and luxury cars, because it gives them the capital needed to continue re-investing in production capacity and battery technology for more affordable cars in the future. Tesla is playing a long game, and so far it's working. The popularity of Tesla alone has driven other auto makers to step up their electric car game, which is indeed a "great deal for the world" to help get us all off combustion engines.
    - Draiken 11y ago
      Interesting, was not aware of that project. Agreed that maybe the luxury car is the right way to start his attempt with a healthy cash flow. In fact, I'm a big fan of people like him, who have the money and instead of just playing the markets to get more of it, he uses it to build something that can eventually help us. The main reason for my comment was that some people idolize him like he has cured cancer or erradicated world hunger. These people should to take a step back :)
  - 13thLetter 11y ago
    You could say the same thing about cellular telephones, which once upon a time were also luxury items that only very rich people could own. If they hadn't gone through the "here's a fancy thing for the rich" phase they never would have reached the "here's an affordable thing for everyone" phase.
gadders 11y ago
It's his money, not ours or the governments. If he wants to wipe his arse on his cash and set it on fire it's none of our business.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
> Billionaires are prescriptive. "I will solve this problem". That's good, and that's sort of the point of getting money, is it not? We should encourage those who are rich to pursue goals beneficial to everyone. They have the ability to achieve things no "democratic" groups (and countries) can, because the latter are plagued with coordination problems.

d_theorist 11y ago

Yes, I thought that both this line, and the Peter Thiel reference about giving women the vote, were intellectually dishonest. "Then he outlined his plan to detonate nuclear weapons on Mars." This deliberately takes the quote out of context to make it seem silly. Thiel wasn't "complaining" about the extension of the franchise. He was simply making the historical observation that women are a hard constituency for libertarians to convince.

arethuza 11y ago

"Then he outlined his plan to detonate nuclear weapons on Mars." This isn't a new idea - Kim Stanley Robinson mentions nukes being used to melt underground polar ice in his Mars trilogy. After all, we'd all think using nukes to move an asteroid on a collision course with Earth was a good idea - so its not like a "harmless" use of a nuke is impossible.

iyn 11y ago

I think this is the source of Musk's "claim": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV6hP9wpMW8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV6hP9wpMW8 Musk just said that there are 2 options how to warm up Mars: the fast way and the slow way, Colbert asked about the fast way so Musk mentioned Thermonuclear weapons. IMO the quote in the presentation is not honest.

firebones 11y ago

I don't think it was uncalled for. It takes into account that the target reader/listener is up on current events (the Musk quote from Colbert) and is in on the joke that it is an exaggeration, but one that parodies itself. In the long run, writers (and presenters) must take the risk and assume that their audience is intelligent and informed, lest we be left with lowest common denominator dreck.