Elon Musk has built real companies which make real stuff... his track record suggests that he has a better informed and organized way of thinking about the potentials of technology than Carrico's.Making money makes better thinking. I mean, obviously.
It takes years of study to write as poorly as he [me! oh, the posthumanity!] does.You can tell true intellectuals by the way they disdain humanities scholarship. I mean, obviously. You can tell the ones who would flourish in a wilderness of post-human post-biological super-intelligences by the way they dismiss as worthless or even unintelligible any expression of conventional human intelligence that departs in its concerns, or even in tone or style, the least bit from their parochial prejudices and comfortable terms.
I mean, obviously.
Less Wrong, so wrong.
A singularitarian riposte to the preceding declares: "Of course, Elon Musk's ability to make money from scratch doesn't seem problematic when progressives want to shake him down for some of it at gunpoint." I'm not completely sure if the thrust here is that Democrats (especially, presumably, the neoliberal technocratic corporatists who are the least left of the Democrats) don't mind getting Musk to contribute to their political campaigns... or if the thrust is instead the more fulsome fulminating reactionary market fundamentalist proposal that Musk has to pay taxes on the profits he takes. If the point is the former, it is hard to see how the "gunpoint" metaphor is in point, if the point is the latter presumably the fact that the taxes are progressive actually does indeed register some sense that there is something problematic about Musk's "ability to make money." I am inclined to think our Singularitarian has the latter point in mind. If so, then we find some fairly facile but fundamental false assumptions catastrophically at play in the "commonsense" offered up in this forum dedicated to unbiased clearheaded right thinking: on the one hand we have the hilarious, and very American, narcissistic fantasy that entrepreneurs make their fortunes "from scratch," as if plutocratic profits do not arise in a world of far more stakeholders taking risks, paying costs, sharing knowledges, making efforts, citing norms, depending on maintained infrastructural affordances even if it is the entrepreneur-stakeholder who disproportionately takes the bows and the profits in the end; and on the other hand we have the hilarious, and again very American, paranoid fantasy that taxes constitute a violent act rather than the price paid for the maintenance of a civilization capable of facilitating fortunes or even recognizing and responding to violent acts in the first place. Quite apart from pressuring the self-congratulatory image of Less Wrongites that theirs is a conspicuously superior space for clear thinking, I note that this response adds yet another (among so many!) data point substantiating my oft-repeated, oft-documented observation connecting futurological sub(cult)ures structurally, ideologically, and practically with reactionary politics -- an observation that is usually castigated as name calling or even hate speech by the futurologists themselves in between their "apolitical" celebrations of venture capitalist poster boys and the latest evopsycho douchebaggery. The commenter, "advancedatheist" (I'm guessing my own atheism of over thirty years, because it is not a pretext for scientism, tribalism, racism, or patriarchy, is probably not the "advanced" kind) also declares my thinking to be "ignorant of history" and full of non sequiturs. I daresay my students would be amused to hear these complaints directed at the lecturer who historicizes everything to within an inch of its life and endlessly exposes fallacies formal and informal in their undergraduate rhetoric courses and graduate theory seminars. At any rate, I'm sure there are enough parentheses, commas, and dashes in this paragraph to confirm the Less Wrongites in their sturdy suspicion that I am incapable of writing as writing clearly should be done.