5 ms·

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 al

by 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".
        Retra 11y ago
        Sure, it's always a concern. Just because we make something doesn't mean that we should use it. So you've already got that ethical dilemma covered on the basis of usage, if not invention. On the other hand, if you don't develop technology, you'll never know if it will be used for good, and you'll never see the advantages if it is. And failing to develop something does nothing to prevent someone else from developing it later. If something is possible, you want to be the one making it possible, not the one cowering in fear while someone else forges on ahead.
    - buffoon 11y ago
      I don't think Musk has proven anything yet but has given people some hope that things are certainly possible. I genuinely don't believe we need electric cars though at all. We need less travel and transport and redistribution of facilities and skills. That's a much bigger problem. At the moment, the hub/spoke and centralised model of society has no redundancy and providing ubiquitous cheap transport isn't going to solve that, just make the problem hang on longer by forcing people to remain sitting on their butts on a freeway in a slightly better car rolling into a job they could probably do at home or doesn't need it exist anyway. Also batteries need to be filled up, recycled, disposed of still. We'll see how that goes shall we... SpaceX isn't fundamentally changing the model of anything, just packaging the same turd differently. That might be to build capital (customers = capital) but there isn't anything fundamentally different to what they are doing at the 10,000ft level. ESA have had a similar model for a couple of decades.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        > SpaceX isn't fundamentally changing the model of anything, just packaging the same turd differently. That might be to build capital (customers = capital) but there isn't anything fundamentally different to what they are doing at the 10,000ft level. ESA have had a similar model for a couple of decades. Of course they are. The whole point of everything they do is to cut down the costs of launching things into space by 2-3 orders of magnitude, which itself is just a step towards their real goal, i.e. Mars. They're pretty straightforward about 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.

by buffoon 11y ago

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".
        Retra 11y ago
        Sure, it's always a concern. Just because we make something doesn't mean that we should use it. So you've already got that ethical dilemma covered on the basis of usage, if not invention. On the other hand, if you don't develop technology, you'll never know if it will be used for good, and you'll never see the advantages if it is. And failing to develop something does nothing to prevent someone else from developing it later. If something is possible, you want to be the one making it possible, not the one cowering in fear while someone else forges on ahead.
  - buffoon 11y ago
    I don't think Musk has proven anything yet but has given people some hope that things are certainly possible. I genuinely don't believe we need electric cars though at all. We need less travel and transport and redistribution of facilities and skills. That's a much bigger problem. At the moment, the hub/spoke and centralised model of society has no redundancy and providing ubiquitous cheap transport isn't going to solve that, just make the problem hang on longer by forcing people to remain sitting on their butts on a freeway in a slightly better car rolling into a job they could probably do at home or doesn't need it exist anyway. Also batteries need to be filled up, recycled, disposed of still. We'll see how that goes shall we... SpaceX isn't fundamentally changing the model of anything, just packaging the same turd differently. That might be to build capital (customers = capital) but there isn't anything fundamentally different to what they are doing at the 10,000ft level. ESA have had a similar model for a couple of decades.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      > SpaceX isn't fundamentally changing the model of anything, just packaging the same turd differently. That might be to build capital (customers = capital) but there isn't anything fundamentally different to what they are doing at the 10,000ft level. ESA have had a similar model for a couple of decades. Of course they are. The whole point of everything they do is to cut down the costs of launching things into space by 2-3 orders of magnitude, which itself is just a step towards their real goal, i.e. Mars. They're pretty straightforward about 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.