Slashdot Mirror


The Billionaires' Space Club

theodp writes Silicon sultans are the new robber barons, writes The Economist, adding that "they have been diversifying into businesses that have little to do with computers, while egotistically proclaiming that they alone can solve mankind's problems, from aging to space travel." Over at Slate, NYU journalism prof Charles Seife is less-than impressed with The Billionaires' Space Club. "It's an old trick," begins Seife. "Multimillionaires regularly try to spin acts of crass ego gratification as selfless philanthropy, no matter how obviously self-serving. They jump out of balloons at the edge of the atmosphere, take submarines to the bottom of the ocean, or shoot endangered animals on safari, all in the name of science and exploration. The more recent trend is billionaires making fleets of rocket ships for private space exploration. What makes this one different is that the public actually seems to buy the farce." Seife goes on to argue that "neither [Elon] Musk's nor [Richard] Branson's goals really seem to break new ground, despite all the talk of exploration."

26 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. Do I buy it? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm well aware of fake "philanthropy". Some of the more respectable philanthropy even fails. Supposing that some billionaire actually funds the lab that finds the cure for cancer - he has bought and paid for his brand of immortality. The world doesn't need or want any more pyramids, so cancer will do the trick.

    All the same - if enough people are competing to accomplish something is space, SOMEONE is going to succeed.

    Yeah, I buy it. Hell, I'd work for little more than a pretty meager wage if I could be reasonably sure of ACCOMPLISHING something meaningful in space.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    1. Re:Do I buy it? by Livius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is exactly why The Economist is over-stating the argument. Anonymous charity is a goal of many religions, but self-promoting charity is better than no charity at all. If the philanthropy achieves its charitable goal, then it doesn't matter if it's self-serving, and one could argue that the wealthy patron has honestly earned the fame and recognition that they receive. If it does not achieve its goal, or does so inefficiently, then the public is not likely to be fooled.

    2. Re:Do I buy it? by the+gnat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      neither Branson nor Musk have ever said that their space ventures are anything other than a method of making them a bunch of profit

      Musk has repeatedly stated that he wants to retire on Mars, and making orbital launches affordable is a first step towards that. It sounds a little nutty, but I wish him the best of luck anyway. If he succeeds, we should all benefit in the long term; if he only makes a fool of himself, at least he's not doing it with my money.

    3. Re:Do I buy it? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's especially weird about this article is that neither Branson nor Musk have ever said that their space ventures are anything other than a method of making them a bunch of profit...

      Nor have they "egotistically proclaim[ed] that they alone can solve mankind's problems, from aging to space travel." Nor "all the talk of exploration." Nor "shoot endangered animals on safari".

      Seriously, the guy is nothing but a walking strawman.

      There's plenty of things you can criticise the "PayPal mafia" and NewSpace over, especially Thiel and Branson respectively, but nothing that the Professor is going on about even comes close to a valid criticism. (Or even something that has anything to do with reality.) It's bizarre that someone would say it, but crazy that a major newspaper would actually publish it.

      "The more recent trend is billionaires making fleets of rocket ships"

      A) "recently", for something that's over a decade old, suggests that he's only just heard about it and because he only just heard about it, thinks it's new.

      B) "fleets of rocket ships" is how a child would see it. Suggesting the guy is not only ignorant, but is surrounded by ignorant people.

      "neither [Elon] Musk's nor [Richard] Branson's goals really seem to break new ground"

      VG won't be doing anything special, (although even a private sub-orbital system is new; nothing like SS2 exists. X-15 with passengers and open space.)

      But Musk already has the cheapest launcher on the market (perhaps ignoring a few micro-launchers), is about to develop fly-back first stage (something the industry has been wishing for since the early sixties), and is developing a private manned capsule, and is developing a heavy lift launcher that costs less than any other medium-lift launcher on the market even if they doesn't achieve reusability, and he's working with NASA to develop a Saturn V F1-class engine for a Saturn V class launcher, and he wants to go to Mars.

      Not breaking new ground? What the fuck does this idiot want from them, a warp drive?

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    4. Re:Do I buy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What the hell do I care how the 1% of the 1% spend their money?

      In a certain sense, I grew up poor in a rich (extended) family. Most of the other families in my neighborhood had motor boats and went water skiing in the summer. My family had a $150 canoe from K-mart. But I never went to bed hungry out of economic necessity. And when I got accepted to MIT, my family paid the full tuition.

      But then I ended up living overseas and seeing first-hand levels of poverty and human suffering that will haunt me for the rest of my life. Before that, I didn't really understand poverty. Sure, growing up I heard about famines in Africa and urban decay in the inner cities. But it never really hit home that there were vast numbers of good innocent people who, through no fault of their own, were trapped in vicious soul destroying poverty. I wasn't a bad person but at a subconscious cultural level without really thinking about it I accepted that the world mostly a good and just place and that most people who were suffering in desperate poverty somehow deserved it: if they really didn't want to be poor then they could just "make some good choices" and stop being poor.

      So why does it matter what rich people spend their money on? In the long term, an economy can increase it's productive capacity through scientific discovery and technological advances. In the very long term, we'll have technology that would allow most people in the world to live lives of comfort and leisure while robots do almost all of the work. But, in the short term, the economy has a limited productive capacity - that can either be used to produce frivolous luxury goods for rich people or to lift poor people out of poverty. And rich people control most of the economy. In a certain sense, I believe in the power of the human spirit. I believe that humanity can achieve incredible things - but only if it wants to. If the (rich) people who control the world's resources and economy mostly want frivolous luxury goods for themselves then that's what humanity will achieve. On other the other hand, if it were possible to wave a magic wand and make all the world's rich people truly care about lifting poor people out of poverty then poverty could be eradicated from the world in a single generation.

      Mostly rich people really don't understand poverty because it's so far outside their own life experience but many of them have also not thought carefully about whether the purpose of life is to do as much as they can for themselves or do do as much as they can for others (and many naively pretend that the two are exactly equivalent).

    5. Re:Do I buy it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The 'dont care AC' here. You are 100% correct. I think maybe I overstated my potion a bit.

      Even a poor neighborhood in the US does not understand the abject poverty some people in 3rd world countries lives in.

      However, my point is I can neither control nor influence what these people do (just as you could not control what your extended family did with their money). In any manor whatsoever. I would rather they spend it on their pet space project than pumping it into some hedgefund that just shuffles money around. At least the money is doing *some* good rather than just making interest/valuation float.

      The best way I can put it is this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      Unfortunatly it is wrapped up in anti immigration rhetoric. We could literally steal the money from all the 1%rs and hand it out freely to the world. It still would not be enough. The mean daily wage of every person on the planet is $2.50. Think about that. There is 0 we can do to help them. The only way to help them is to find ways they can help themselves. Anything else will not work as it is not sustainable in any way (as giveaway money runs out).

      In our own country we have sold everyone on the idea they have to go to college to be something. We we should be selling people on the idea they need to build things. They need to create jobs, they need to be the ones doing the hiring. They need to work to build a better life. No one will give you the really nice things. They will give you basic needs and thats it. Instead we sell people that they could be chosen and lifted up out of poverty at the whim of the 1%. We sell large sections of our population on the idea if they play football or basketball good enough they could win the lottery and make millions. We sell everyone on the quick fix. I do not look to the 1%rs to help me out. They never will in fact they are looking to separate me from what little I do have. They are too busy playing astronaut or robber baron. I worry about what I am going to do. We have huge swaths of people who have thrown up their hands and go 'I do not care' we need to get them to care again. We need them to build a better world instead of a lazy one where everyone lays around hopping to win the lottery between bits of reality TV.

      And whoever tagged this one as flamebait is a jerk.

  2. What the hell is this guy smoking by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    not gonna bother clicking any of the links. This guy is either incredibly ignorant and been living under a rock for the past few years, or his 401k is heavily vested in defense contractors. SpaceX is shaking the space launch industry to the very foundations and turning everything upside down. SpaceX is already cheaper than them (by a lot), but if the R program succeeds (we'll know in a few days), basically Elon will wipe out ULA and Ariannespace and there will be nothing left of them except for a few crumbs thrown at them by their buddies in government.

    1. Re:What the hell is this guy smoking by denzacar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like the bit where running a space transport company with long term cargo, people and fuel transporting plans and goals, including but not limited to resupplying the ISS is equated with "shoot[ing] endangered animals on [a] safari".

      Why not just call Musk an apartheid-lovin fascist nazi-commie from South-WeHateBlackPeople-Africa?

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    2. Re:What the hell is this guy smoking by Guspaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope, once you run an Internet company, you're never allowed to be successful at anything else. It doesn't matter if you run a highly successful and profitable space transport company, that's just vanity and hubris. It doesn't even matter if you weren't a billionaire when you founded said space transport company, and that it was your post-dot-com companies such as said space transport company that made you a billionaire... you're now in the "billionaire robber baron space club".

  3. Someone's mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can practically feel the envy radiating off him. "You can't be rich and a good person too, that's not fair!"

  4. "all in the name of science and exploration"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe I just haven't seen it, but do they actually claim this? Sources? I've always thought of these things as rich peoples hobbies, on their own money, for their own fun. I assume the talk about things isn't even the primary goal, but just a necessity as unusual things tend to draw attention anyway. Consequently, relations to fan-boys and media have to be managed. But that's just a side-effect?

  5. Troll. Go away. by NReitzel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nuff' said.

    --

    Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.

  6. What's with the "robber" nonsense? by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Silicon sultans are the new robber barons

    What's with the "robber" nonsense? Whom did the "silicon sultans" rob and of what? Are the toiling masses of the downtrodden not better off with Internet-connections to a dazzling variety of sites and cellular phones in their pockets?

    Perhaps, comparing value-creating capitalists to the highway plunderers of the dark-ages — as has been the Illiberal Socialists' wont for nearly 150 years — is not entirely warranted?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  7. Will you buy it? (Re:Do I buy it?) by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The world doesn't need or want any more pyramids, so cancer will do the trick.

    It sound like you are disapproving... Will you refuse any treatment developed with a "silicon sultan's" money — because the benefactor's purpose was not sufficiently pure in your opinion?

    Will you demand, the laboratories be staffed by people of all races and genders, and that any developed drugs be manufactured by unionized workers and/or be "Fair Trade" certified — before you agree to accept the cure?

    Will you reject it, because "not everyone" can afford it — or will you, perhaps, wish, such "unfair" drug was never developed in the first place?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  8. As the saying goes... by marciot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They hate us 'cuz they ain't us.

  9. Commercialize Space or write Snarky Blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Who is more likely to contribute to the survival of human kind?

  10. Traditional funding vs. individual billionairs by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What are the alternatives? Who will fund things like deep sea diving or space launch systems? (Big game hunting is just a stupid troll.)

    There are only two groups outside of individual rich people who can fund these endeavors: governments and normal investment. Governments are already in the game. India just launched their first heavy lift vehicle, for example.

    Regular investment will never take that kind of risk. Perhaps in the past you could have raised money on Wall Street or the equivalent, but these days big financial institutions expect government subsidized guaranteed profit. It's so much easier to buy legislation, manipulate the system and control regulators then invest in long term innovation. Acquisitions and mergers along with zero interest prime rate funding lines their pockets without any bothersome "investing". Why bother with risky space investment, for example?

    So it's fine if big egos go after these kinds of things. There are a lot worse ways that the ultra rich spend their wealth. Would you rather see Musk with Tesla and SpaceX, or Ellison with his billion dollar yacht?

    By the way, you are subsidizing Ellison's yacht and purchase of the island of Lanai in Hawaii. He took out a loan against his stock in Oracle, so the interest he pays defers his income taxes. To quote another rich asshat, "taxes are for little people."

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  11. If it doesn't succeed... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If [self-serviing private philanthropy] does not achieve its goal, or does so inefficiently, then the public is not likely to be fooled.

    If self-serving private philanthropy does not achieve it' goal, nobody is harmed except the self-serving private philanthropist.

    If PUBLIC philanthropy does not achieve its goal, the general population has been looted and received no benefit in return.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  12. Re:RAH had this in the 50's by TheEyes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Space exploration and colonization are hopeless fantasies. Nobody in their right mind is going to spend insane fortunes to explore and colonize the most inhospitable places there are, for no apparent benefit.

    Hopeless or not, we have to do it. Right now all of humanity is in a single interconnected biosphere, that is one rich crazy dickhead away from becoming uninhabitable. How many people are out there right now claiming that we can do anything we want to the Earth and humanity can never become extinct, because God? We need to get sustainable populations off of this planet and somewhere they can survive for when the inevitable happens and one of those mouth-breathing morons hits the wrong button somewhere and releases super-Ebola into the atmosphere or something.

  13. Re:RAH had this in the 50's by itzly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We can't we just go extinct ? What's so special about our particular DNA configuration that we would have to preserve it at huge costs ?

  14. Re:RAH had this in the 50's by Lotana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's so special about our particular DNA configuration that we would have to preserve it at huge costs ?

    We are the only living organism in the known Universe that possess such a high level of intelligence. Until we discover another species that can plan thier survival on interstellar basis, we are special and worth preserving.

  15. Re:RAH had this in the 50's by itzly · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't see what the big deal is. 5 million years ago we were still swinging from trees. Nobody has any idea what humanity, or whatever is left, will look like in another 5 million years. Our resources are better spent worrying about the next century here in Earth.

  16. Re:RAH had this in the 50's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why don't you just go and die? Is there anything special about you?

    Stop wasting precious resources and time.

  17. Re:RAH had this in the 50's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are seven billion people on the earth. I think we can work on more than one endeavour at once.

  18. Re:RAH had this in the 50's by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nobody in his right mind would build a worldwide communication network that would shoot information anywhere in the world with negligible friction, either. But there were entrepreneurs who just went out and did it, so it will be these very people who are most likely to open up extraterrestrial destinations for us.

    I can personally remember a time when getting a long-distance phone call meant that somebody had died.

  19. Re:RAH had this in the 50's by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have just the organization for you, and all fellow misanthropes: http://vhemt.org/

    Please visit this site and abide by its recommendations. For the good of humanity and for all the promise of our future, encourage all your fellow Greens to do the same.