[FRIAM] Cautionary Tales: CliFi

[Marcus Daniels]

I can sort of see why Musk is annoying to scientists because he tends to use ideas and technology that already exist.
So, what is he really adding?   Neuralink is in this category.    That company is making the technology work at a larger scale and at lower power and making the surgery repeatable.  The company (not him) is making it practical and approaching it like a product.   Some scientists are prone to thinking that engineering is a not a thing or that a product mindset is just superficial.   Or even that money doesn't matter.

I'm less enamored with Musk's futurism than I am appalled at tunnel vision, overspecialization, and risk aversion of so many others.   The annoyance people have at Musk can only be because they must acknowledge his influence.   And seeing that influence they conclude he is somehow responsible for the world in the way that, say, Joe Biden is responsible for the world.  Or as Feynman put it,  “You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing.”   What would be the point of being a billionaire if you couldn't at least be the dork you want to be?

Before Space X had customers and a track record, there were all the NASA old fogies saying he'd be killing people and he could not possibly do it.  Am I glad to see them so wrong?  Yes.  It is not because he is the best or some Tony Stark.   It is because they are the worst.

Marcus



________________________________
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 8:23 AM
To: friam at redfish.com <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Cautionary Tales: CliFi



On 1/27/22 10:01 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

< Musk is trying to kick our cans from fossil fuel extraction/combustion/spills to Lithium (and heavy metals) extraction/discarding as well as the can of an out of-balance biosphere on earth to terraforming Mars (with care and thoughtful intention and no unexpected side-effects?).  >

https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk#prize-activity


yes to electrolizing water into hydrogen (and even creating ammonia as a more easily stored/transported/cracked "carrier" for hydrogen, up to ammonia fuel cells, etc.)   technically very likely and "doable" with a somewhat limited *known* downside.   Though the fossil fuel and battery industries have a long enough list... but clearly biased.   We neo-luddites have long lists as well, with similar caveats.   I was raised by Calvinists so I recognize in myself when I am generally just being negative about anything  that might be "fun", but that doesn't stop me from being skeptical anyway.  I am also of the "if it feels good, do it" generation...  extreme Hedonism and Calvinism only polarize an otherwise complex and rich space.  TANSTAAFL in my (post-Libertarian) vocabulary is "there aint no such thing as a free lunch, but that doesn't mean you can't eat someone else's when they aren't looking".

And yes to Musk being a puzzling and mixed hero/villain.   I don't doubt his *intentions*, I think they are (by his values and view of the stakes at hand) righteous.  That doesn't preclude him being an egomaniac with an exponentially growing clout/sense ratio.   I can't see any of his earth-focused tech as anything but a (very well crafted) double-pronged strategy...  gathering the economic leverage of doing "useful" things on the earth (electrifying and solarizing)... whilst developing technology useful for colonizing/terraforming mars.   CO2 harvesting is an obvious one, as is tunneling and broad electrification  (are his residential heat-pumps on the market yet?)...   perfect for taking to Mars.

I believe that GeoEngineering is inevitable, given who we are (Homo Faber) but I also believe our future exercises in this realm will "rhyme" with all of our previous engineering "miracles".  Maybe we *can* rhyme our way out of the corner we rhymed ourselves into...  but I fear that most if not all of our R&D is biased toward short-term and narrow goals (Glen's rant about "values" and corruption), and defined by confirmation biases...

I'm probably just barking at the church choir here...


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220128/e2a01660/attachment.html>