I would hazard that it's partly because the rich don't get rich by throwing their money away. The thing about "cool scifi sh!#" is that it stands a very good c

I would hazard that it's partly because the rich don't get rich by throwing their money away. The thing about "cool scifi sh!#" is that it stands a very good chance of not being profitable, and an even greater chance of not being profitable any time soon. The author writes: > As more entrepreneurs become self-made billionaires in the Internet age, I think we’ll see the Tony Stark Rating rise I disagree. I think the only thing that will make that happen is inflation. When the value of a billion is halved, then we'll see it rise. I would be surprised if there weren't plenty more Sub-Billionaire Elon Musks, who have reached a level of wealth that they consider sufficient for future-proof work-free financial independence, and decided to pursue their least profitable or most fanciful of dreams. The author himself points to various cool projects that don't have a single Tony Stark figure at the helm. To become a Billionaire, whilst still being of a mind to do "cool scifi sh!#" requires at least one of these three things: 1) Suddenly becoming very rich (at least a near-billionaire). 2) Some of your "cool scifi sh!#" becoming profitable. 3) Persisting in moneymaking when you could be doing the cool stuff instead. Also, how many billionaires (openly or anonymously) fund chairs or grants at universities? A billionaire of the sort that inherited multiple millions, then made a load more money through speculative finance whilst also working as a corporate barrister is not going to be a Tony Stark; but they may want to see robots with Genuine People Personalities become a reality. It would be far better for someone like that to fund existing university research than to set up their own version of Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.