6 ms·

We literally got to the moon before any billionaires bought joy rides to lower orbit, so what you’re saying is proven false already by history? It’s so insane

We literally got to the moon before any billionaires bought joy rides to lower orbit, so what you’re saying is proven false already by history? It’s so insane to me that people honestly believe that we need billionaires to fund all their hedonic desires in order to achieve anything good and useful as a society. It’s provably false and frankly an absolutely pessimistic view of society and humanity.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>We literally got to the moon before any billionaires bought joy rides to lower orbit, Once upon a time you needed nation state sponsorship in order to sail across the ocean. It's absolutely insane to me that people don't see that a billionaire can do as a vanity project something that was ~50yr ago only the purview of superpowers as an obvious sign of societal progress.
- rgbrgb 5y ago
  I think you're articulating exactly what the other commenters find appalling: a single man with the power of a state.
  - avarun 5y ago
    You, a single human being, can send messages from your home to the other end of the planet within a second today. This is greater power than any state had even 100 years ago. Why compare this "single man's power" to a state from 50 years ago? It's disingenuous.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - BHSPitMonkey 5y ago
    There's some truth to this but for the most part you're drawing the wrong conclusion here; Things like aviation and rocketry have become well-understood and "cheap" enough that they're now within reach of the private sector (same goes for the development/construction of satellites which facilitates commercial demand for access to orbit). Just because I can use my smartphone to perform tasks which could only be rivaled by global superpowers 300 years ago doesn't mean I wield the power of a state.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bart_spoon 5y ago
    You are missing the point. You, as an individual living in 2021, have the power of a state as recent as 100 years ago, in many ways. Is that also appalling?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ErneX 5y ago
What’s hedonistic? this is a business. There’s money to be made on space, be it via a fancy rollercoaster now or mining or who knows what else in the future. It is inevitable.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
  They, minus Musk but plus Carmack, aren’t in it for the money. It’s no coincidence that they all chose the same field to work in, which happens to be one 9-year old boys tend to be fascinated by. And it isn’t because it’s such a good opportunity only they have a chance to succeed on, or we’d see plenty of large companies or a few unicorn startups trying as well. That doesn’t mean they will never get some revenue, maybe recoup their investments, or even see real profits. Space X is on a trajectory in that general direction. But it isn’t what motivated them.
  - simooooo 5y ago
    Because the thoughts of a 9 year old and an adult can never overlap?
Hokusai 5y ago
You are 100% right. A million people can own $1000 in a corporation, or 1 person can own $1,000,000,000. The company has the same capital but wealth is distributed differently. Even if we needed big corporations, we still do not need billionaires.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Countries without billionaires are mired in poverty. Billionaires can make high risk investments. A million people won't.
  - Hokusai 5y ago
    A million people can invest $20 in high risk/high reward investments similarly to a venture capitalist, meanwhile investing $800 in some less risky investment. Kickstarter exists.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      Good luck doing a Kickstarter for an enterprise that will need billions in investment.
  - dumbfoundded 5y ago
    Governments actually make the risky investments. From infrastructure to nukes to the internet to space travel to particle colliders to fusion. The governments that have made these investments are the ones that do the best job of representing the interests of millions of people. If you take the limit of concentrating wealth, you get a dictatorship. They don't seem to do much. It's hard to believe in democracy and insane wealth concentration at the same time.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      > If you take the limit of concentrating wealth, you get a dictatorship. Except that's never happened, not even close. Ironically, the modern activists are busy trying to force businesses into getting involved in politics unrelated to their business. This smacks of foolishness to me, as in be careful what one wishes for. > It's hard to believe in democracy and insane wealth concentration at the same time. Wealth in a capitalist country is created, not concentrated.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
WalterBright 5y ago
Government did indeed put man on the moon. But they did it at an insane and unsustainable cost, which is why the moon was then abandoned. Musk/Bezos/Branson are making space travel a paying proposition, which makes all the difference.
- dumbfoundded 5y ago
  Musk is creating a constellation of satellites that can provide global internet. His technology seems like the only viable way to and back from Mars. Bezos/Branson made a rollercoaster for the super wealthy.
  - layoric 5y ago
    >Musk is creating a constellation of satellites that can provide global internet And is a good example of creating negative externalities, lots of ground based astronomy (a field that has contributed immensely to our collective scientific knowledge and pushed technology advancements forward globally) extremely difficult due to those same satellites that create interference. Yes, global internet is good, but funnily enough this satellite network creates the need for more astronomical observations be done from space/orbit.. Handy that he is in the business of selling that service as well.. So while I agree his rocket technology is a great advancement and has spurred others to create similar reusable first stage rocket tech, these efforts were already underway. Musk might have accelerated this through risking his personal wealth when creating SpaceX but this was not a one man effort and people should spend less time attributing these advancements to one person. Hoping "competition" in this space returns to helping orgs like NASA achieve scientific goals (rather than private joy rides), but that would require convincing govs to spend more tax money on these organizations..
    - dumbfoundded 5y ago
      I pretty much agree with everything you've said, maybe with different emphasis on certain points. In particular, I do hope the reusable technology benefits people first and then science. I sometimes wonder about how many Einsteins are born and die without ever learning to read. First and foremost, I hope we use this technology to benefit people and science second.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>We literally got to the moon before any billionaires bought joy rides to lower orbit, Once upon a time you needed nation state sponsorship in order to sail across the ocean. It's absolutely insane to me that people don't see that a billionaire can do as a vanity project something that was ~50yr ago only the purview of superpowers as an obvious sign of societal progress.

rgbrgb 5y ago
I think you're articulating exactly what the other commenters find appalling: a single man with the power of a state.
- avarun 5y ago
  You, a single human being, can send messages from your home to the other end of the planet within a second today. This is greater power than any state had even 100 years ago. Why compare this "single man's power" to a state from 50 years ago? It's disingenuous.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- BHSPitMonkey 5y ago
  There's some truth to this but for the most part you're drawing the wrong conclusion here; Things like aviation and rocketry have become well-understood and "cheap" enough that they're now within reach of the private sector (same goes for the development/construction of satellites which facilitates commercial demand for access to orbit). Just because I can use my smartphone to perform tasks which could only be rivaled by global superpowers 300 years ago doesn't mean I wield the power of a state.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bart_spoon 5y ago
  You are missing the point. You, as an individual living in 2021, have the power of a state as recent as 100 years ago, in many ways. Is that also appalling?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ErneX 5y ago

What’s hedonistic? this is a business. There’s money to be made on space, be it via a fancy rollercoaster now or mining or who knows what else in the future. It is inevitable.

IfOnlyYouKnew 5y ago
They, minus Musk but plus Carmack, aren’t in it for the money. It’s no coincidence that they all chose the same field to work in, which happens to be one 9-year old boys tend to be fascinated by. And it isn’t because it’s such a good opportunity only they have a chance to succeed on, or we’d see plenty of large companies or a few unicorn startups trying as well. That doesn’t mean they will never get some revenue, maybe recoup their investments, or even see real profits. Space X is on a trajectory in that general direction. But it isn’t what motivated them.
- simooooo 5y ago
  Because the thoughts of a 9 year old and an adult can never overlap?

Hokusai 5y ago

You are 100% right. A million people can own $1000 in a corporation, or 1 person can own $1,000,000,000. The company has the same capital but wealth is distributed differently. Even if we needed big corporations, we still do not need billionaires.

WalterBright 5y ago
Countries without billionaires are mired in poverty. Billionaires can make high risk investments. A million people won't.
- Hokusai 5y ago
  A million people can invest $20 in high risk/high reward investments similarly to a venture capitalist, meanwhile investing $800 in some less risky investment. Kickstarter exists.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Good luck doing a Kickstarter for an enterprise that will need billions in investment.
- dumbfoundded 5y ago
  Governments actually make the risky investments. From infrastructure to nukes to the internet to space travel to particle colliders to fusion. The governments that have made these investments are the ones that do the best job of representing the interests of millions of people. If you take the limit of concentrating wealth, you get a dictatorship. They don't seem to do much. It's hard to believe in democracy and insane wealth concentration at the same time.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > If you take the limit of concentrating wealth, you get a dictatorship. Except that's never happened, not even close. Ironically, the modern activists are busy trying to force businesses into getting involved in politics unrelated to their business. This smacks of foolishness to me, as in be careful what one wishes for. > It's hard to believe in democracy and insane wealth concentration at the same time. Wealth in a capitalist country is created, not concentrated.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

WalterBright 5y ago

Government did indeed put man on the moon. But they did it at an insane and unsustainable cost, which is why the moon was then abandoned. Musk/Bezos/Branson are making space travel a paying proposition, which makes all the difference.

dumbfoundded 5y ago
Musk is creating a constellation of satellites that can provide global internet. His technology seems like the only viable way to and back from Mars. Bezos/Branson made a rollercoaster for the super wealthy.
- layoric 5y ago
  >Musk is creating a constellation of satellites that can provide global internet And is a good example of creating negative externalities, lots of ground based astronomy (a field that has contributed immensely to our collective scientific knowledge and pushed technology advancements forward globally) extremely difficult due to those same satellites that create interference. Yes, global internet is good, but funnily enough this satellite network creates the need for more astronomical observations be done from space/orbit.. Handy that he is in the business of selling that service as well.. So while I agree his rocket technology is a great advancement and has spurred others to create similar reusable first stage rocket tech, these efforts were already underway. Musk might have accelerated this through risking his personal wealth when creating SpaceX but this was not a one man effort and people should spend less time attributing these advancements to one person. Hoping "competition" in this space returns to helping orgs like NASA achieve scientific goals (rather than private joy rides), but that would require convincing govs to spend more tax money on these organizations..
  - dumbfoundded 5y ago
    I pretty much agree with everything you've said, maybe with different emphasis on certain points. In particular, I do hope the reusable technology benefits people first and then science. I sometimes wonder about how many Einsteins are born and die without ever learning to read. First and foremost, I hope we use this technology to benefit people and science second.