Please help me understand your perspective. When you say that Elon Musk is admirable because he "has a change-positive attitude," isn't that assuming that any c

Please help me understand your perspective. When you say that Elon Musk is admirable because he "has a change-positive attitude," isn't that assuming that any change is inherently good? That seem just as illogical as assuming that any change is inherently bad. I can also think of instances when mainstream media has been uncritically supportive of new technology, even when they were pretty obviously unsound. One example was their uncritical promotion of filtering technologies that would magically remove microplastics from the ocean, even when there was no way for them to distinguish microplastics from same-sized algae and microorganisms--in addition to a host of other logistical challenges. So I don't think the problem here is that media elites hate change, or that all change is inherently good. In this case the Atlantic is pointing out real, significant challenges for permanent human habitation of Mars at a large scale. Do you believe there's any way to write that story that wouldn't be "anti-technology, anti-progress"?