[FRIAM] Cautionary Tales: CliFi

[Steve Smith]

Marcus -


I can't disagree with your points about Musk's *effectiveness* and those 
(stodgy or incompetent or narrowly ambitious) he has eclipsed over and 
over again in a couple of decades (or less), any more than I can his 
(apparent) *intentions*.   Tony Stark is a fun fictional character for 
technophiles (including me) and I can see why some want to overlay that 
onto the Elon...  but for all my fascination with fictions and stories, 
I don't mistake the Marvel Universe for the one I actually live in...


It is patently NOT my place to tell Musk what to do (beyond any 
financial stake I might hold in his company(ies) as a stakeholder), 
though it IS my place to join Citizens of the (community, county, shire, 
state, nation-state, earth) to discuss and consider what could/should be 
treated as "the commons" and how therefore we manage them (or more 
relevantly, how we decide how to shape the landscape of forces that 
effectively manage/regulate/define them)...   emergent, collective 
phenomena ultimately dominate, no matter what the myriad stripes of 
linear conspiracy theorists may try to demonstrate.


For my purposes, Musk is a force of nature, a Titan in our modern 
pantheon of "influencers" with a megaphone/lever ($200B + beaucoup media 
exposure) as large as any we've seen in a long time. Bezos' influence 
seems anemic next to his, yet it also is not trivial, and Zuckerberg 
seems also the thinnest of gruel, yet they (and many others less 
singular or obvious) are the pivots or fulcrums around which our future 
is being levered into a new shape.   The stories they tell or believe in 
is in many ways the destiny which is manifesting through the "power" we 
apply to said levers..  our $$, Tweets/Posts, votes, etc are directed 
by/through those levers...


I thought that the DLU tech prophet-billionaire was an interesting 
mashup of Musk/Bezos/Zuck but with the (more subtle?) reach of Google 
and perhaps the dreamy/breathy spirituality of Marianne Williamson.  It 
was a powerful caricature, though I can't see much I can do with it, 
except unplug Alexa/SIRI/HeyGoogle with my kneejerk, re-install TOR, and 
#DEFINE Google to be replaced with DuckDuckGo in all instances.


I already buy most of my books through a local Indie and *try* to check 
my local Hardwares (still chain affiliates, if not big-box) for the 
things I'm tempted to order-in via Amazon (after all they do organize my 
purchases for repeat buys, easy returns, significantly useful reviews, 
offer one-click purchases, batching orders into single-day deliveries, 
etc.).  I even try to swing by the espanola ReStore and a couple of 
thrift stores on the off chance I don't need to buy something brand-new, 
depleting whatever supply chain everyone else might be clamoring about.  
If I ever buy a Tesla it will probably be heavily damaged and it will be 
to move the power-train to my '49 dumptruck, though my Gen1, Year0 
GM-Volt is a more likely candidate.   I won't sign up for Starlink until 
they remove their clause requiring me to thereby endorse the 
privatization of Mars to "first comers"...  SpaceX is likely to 
become/spawn the equivalent of the Hudson Bay or East India Co of the 
18/19C on the Moon and Mars, no matter what I think/say/do... but I 
cringe at the thought of openly endorsing a new "land rush"...


I suppose that thinking that any of this matters to anyone but me is 
typical hippy/yuppy-elitist western hubris...


- Steve



On 1/28/22 10:05 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> 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
>
...
>
>
> 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 
>> <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/c0c6cd1a/attachment.html>