Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Tesla - Automatizing electric cars, and semi-trucks.  A self-driven car will become as rare as having a horse. 

SpaceX - A million people to Mars.  

Solar City - Enough energy hits the earth in one day to supply all our power needs for a year.

Giga Factories - Lithium Ion Batteries.

The Boring Company - Travel 200 miles per hour, in underground tunnels.  Funded through merchandise sales.  A Boring Flame Thrower anyone?

Star Link - Access to high speed Internet anywhere

Open AI - Working to ensure safety in quickly advancing Artificial Intelligence technology. Is AI our greatest existential threat?

In 2008 Elon Musk's companies were nearly bankrupt, he put everything he had into keeping them afloat.  Today these companies are developing work environments that foster thousands of the best engineers to live up to their potentials and make exponential breakthroughs in their fields.  

What are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is because of individuals, such as Elon Musk, that I remain an optimist, albeit a cautious optimist. The innovations of today are the conventional and common-place of tomorrow. Modern marvels, such as the 3D printer and genomic mapping, might be enough to persuade any skeptic as to the possibilities of a world such as envisioned in The Jetsons and Star Trek. The fantastic doesn't seem so much like fantasy anymore. Nonetheless, it would only take a misguided movement, or even one psychotic individual to take humanity in the wrong philosophical/ideological direction, and into reverse rather than real progress. One day, there may be more humans living in outer-Terrestrial habitats than on Earth, or the human race could revert to a new dark age, and once again on the verge of extinction.

"If men grasp the source of their destruction-if they dedicate themselves to the greatest of all crusades: a crusade for the absolutism of reason-the twenty-first century will have a chance once more."--Ayn Rand from Philosophy: Who Needs It. (p. 111).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2018 at 2:45 AM, Repairman said:

One day, there may be more humans living in outer-Terrestrial habitats than on Earth, or the human race could revert to a new dark age, and once again on the verge of extinction.

I saw an interview where Musk is talking about this.  They try to discourage him, saying we have enough problems here on earth.  He mentioned some ancient wonders that we forgot how to build.  The way space travel has been gaining inertia since the 60's.  Knowledge and progress are not automatic.  It takes a lot of work by a lot of people to get us to another planet.  

I sometimes wonder if Objectivism has the vital vigor it had when Ayn Rand was alive?  

I like that his companies have a "No Assholes Policy".  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, Nicky said:

government assistance?

Not viable.... why, because he isn't waiting for an Objectivist Utopia before asserting some efficacy?

Edited by Tenderlysharp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tenderlysharp said:

Not viable.... why, because he isn't waiting for an Objectivist Utopia before asserting some efficacy?

Most business models would work in an Capitalist economy (unclear whether you're aware that Objectivism stands for simple, achievable Capitalism, not any kind of Utopia) even better than they do in our current mixed economy. Elon Musk's ventures would not, they would have to be closed.

So what exactly is he efficacious at, except for obtaining government backing through a combination of pushing nonsensical ideologies and hiring former government officials as negotiators?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2018 at 11:23 AM, Nicky said:

(Buffett) He's a business man, responding to demand, not Jesus.

I don't quite understand a world where an objectivist would defend a mystic junk food Buffett, and devalue an engineer who works tirelessly toward technological innovation.  If that future Capitalist economy were real I think Musk would adjust his business plan and be very successful in that world.  Unfortunately I wonder if there are Objective Capitalists who put themselves in a position to value or make profound investments in technological advancement.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thought out critical feedback is exceedingly valuable to running a business.  If these businesses are not objective enough, insight into how they would gain immediate practical benefit from moving toward more objective principles could do a lot to move understanding forward.  

I see many objective principles being implemented in these companies.  Decreasing the inefficiency in government spending has been huge.  Attracting skilled labor by trading value for value with engineers has made the engineer and the company more productive.   Open communication.  Trusting your vision.  The hyper loop competition between engineering colleges was interesting.  Deflecting the control tactics of an often hostile media is something very few objectivists have skillfully navigated.

Seeing deeply into the heart of human nature is only possible for one who genuinely values people...  sending a Tesla roadster into space with a space man in the drivers seat, blasting David Bowie music was an abstraction worthy of Joy.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tenderlysharp said:

I don't quite understand a world where an objectivist would defend a mystic junk food Buffett

Right. In another thread, I corrected you about a claim you made. It happened to be about Warren Buffett. If it was about Hitler, I would've corrected you all the same. Not out of a desire to defend anyone, but to seek the truth.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tenderlysharp said:

and devalue an engineer who works tirelessly toward technological innovation

I haven't said anything about his engineering. I'm not even aware of any engineering he's done. My posts are about his business practices. They're the same practices the villains in Atlas Shrugged rely on to get rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tenderlysharp said:

I don't quite understand a world where an objectivist would defend a mystic junk food Buffett, and devalue an engineer who works tirelessly toward technological innovation.  If that future Capitalist economy were real I think Musk would adjust his business plan and be very successful in that world.  Unfortunately I wonder if there are Objective Capitalists who put themselves in a position to value or make profound investments in technological advancement.  

These two men approach business in a fundamentally different way. Buffet seeks to find the "intrinsic value" of a businesses before he invests (followed by comparing it to the present market value), which means he seeks to uncover and zero in on devaluing business problems. Scrupulousness and honesty is what he sells to Berkshire investors.

Conversely, Musk sells dreams of the future, and doesn't care at all about business, market, or economic problems, and doesn't care about not delivering on his promises. He actively lies about the nature of his businesses to obtain massive government handouts.

An idealistic characterization of Musk's supposed forward-thinking outlook is part of what makes humanity great, just as is Buffet's down-to-earth here-and-now approach. Both men follow some irrational principles, but Musk is much worse in my opinion because he's dishonest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2018 at 3:11 PM, JASKN said:

but Musk is much worse in my opinion because he's dishonest. 

Perhaps I am being idealistic as well.  I haven't yet come to your conclusions.  

On 4/6/2018 at 3:11 PM, JASKN said:

doesn't care about not delivering on his promises

https://futurism.com/images/a-comprehensive-list-of-elon-musks-breakthroughs-in-2017/

It seems he has been delivering something.

 

Ayn Rand Apollo Launch

https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/science-and-industrialization/scientific-and-technological-progress

 

Edited by Tenderlysharp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2018 at 3:11 PM, JASKN said:

He actively lies about the nature of his businesses to obtain massive government handouts.

I am curious about the evidence of this?  

I had the understanding that car companies were forced to take government loans as part of the bank bail outs in 2008, and Tesla paid the loan back quickly with interest.  

SpaceX is profitable from private companies who need satellites launched.  SpaceX has developed ideas that are reducing government spending by having companies compete to reach benchmarks, and awarding more efficient companies with contracts.  Ayn Rand was supportive of the military where these contracts are coming from. 

Edited by Tenderlysharp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nicky said:

sums

Getting states to compete with each other for who is going to fleece his companies the least (tax breaks) seems like the beginning of an Objective approach.

The other subsidies are loans paid back with interest.

The government needs him more than he needs them.

Where were Objectivists when these companies were looking for investors?  If a staunch Objectivist alive today wants to get to Mars, is it possible?  

 

 

It seems ambitious to envision your companies on the way to producing a quarter of a percentage of the GDP...  Thats about $46 Billion.  

The technologies that need to be developed in order to get to Mars have a huge impact on advancing the technologies we use here on Earth.  

I think Ayn Rand's work has directly and indirectly inspired producers to defend their value, and rise to challenges.  Unfortunately you make yourself an unnecessary target to collectivists who hate the version of her in their head, and it seems Objective to not throw your pearls before swine, and admit openly to being influenced by her.  

Edit:Typos

Edited by Tenderlysharp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tenderlysharp said:

The other subsidies are loans paid back with interest.

A loan is a voluntary arrangement. Borrowing stolen money is complicity in the theft, not a "loan".

Quote

If a staunch Objectivist alive today wants to get to Mars, is it possible?  

Without any stolen money? No, it's not possible right now.

It's also impossible with the amount of stolen money Elon Musk has at his disposal, you'd need a lot more. So if he claims he's going to get to Mars, he's either lying or delusional.

The only entity with the necessary funding to get humans to Mars is NASA. Spending $20B/year on NASA, and then handing billions more over to pseudo private entities which are far behind NASA, is pointless duplicate spending meant to line pockets, not to get anyone to Mars.

If we're going to use taxpayer money to get to Mars, let's at least be direct and transparent about it. That way, at least there's some public oversight over where the money is going, instead of it being sieved through opaque back channels into politically connected businessmen's pockets.

 

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Musk was on the forefront of developing and coding online map city guide software, and naively sold it for $22 Million.  Paving the way for Billions in U.S. revenue through the use of similar guides that took his ideas.

Musk built PayPal and made a mistake choosing his co-founders, then had it sold out from under him for $165 Million, the company is worth $100 Billion today.

The US Government has earned billions off of the products of his mind.  They didn't steal from tax payers, they took his money, loaned a small percentage of it to him and he paid it back to them again with interest.  

 

On 4/10/2018 at 11:55 PM, Nicky said:

fairly

In this story by the LA Times (a publication for the collectivist agenda) they are patting themselves on the back, shifting credit, inducing the public to believe that he still owes them something.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Nicky said:

The only entity with the necessary funding to get humans to Mars is NASA.

SpaceX is making superior rockets at a quarter of the cost of NASA's bureaucracy.  The US Government had been buying cheaper satellite launches from other countries, SpaceX is bringing that business back to the US.  SpaceX is also on the way to launching Astronauts, which hasn't been possible in the US since 2011.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mixed Premises... Yes Elon Musk chooses to be interested in societies concerns more than most Objectivists do.  That is his choice, he has earned it.  He is an engineer, a prime mover, an energy generator.  If you want to believe he is your enemy, at least give him the respect of being an intelligent formidable enemy, rather than a straw man.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×